Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

AUTUMN STATEMENT 1987

Ordered,
That there be laid before this House a copy of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement 1987.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Higher Education

Mr. Bill Michie: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the funding of higher education; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): My right hon. Friend announced on 14 October a 9 per cent. increase in funding for the polytechnics and colleges in 1988–89. Our expenditure plans for the universities will be announced later today.

Mr. Michie: Is the Minister aware that in unit of resource terms there has been a 20 per cent. decrease for polytechnics since the Conservative Government came to power? If the Minister values the work of the polytechnics and the increase in the number of students, why have there not been additional resources perhaps along the same lines as the increased resources for universities?

Mr. Jackson: The polytechnics and colleges sector now accounts for more than half the students in higher education—more than 300,000. That is a remarkable achievement. The proposed increase of 9 per cent. this year is sufficient to allow for the expansion of access to the level of known demand and to finance the continuing programme of selective initiatives.

Mr. Rhodes James: When will the review of student financing be completed and published?

Mr. Jackson: We hope to complete the work of the review committee early next year. It remains to be decided whether and in what form that will be published.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Minister aware that the formula for responsible bodies' educational provision means that access courses being run in higher education

find it difficult to run on a proper basis involving tutorial and seminar provision? Are there any plans to increase the funding available for access courses?

Mr. Jackson: There is a continuing growth of access courses, which we welcome. The Government are committed to increase the number of students in higher education by 50,000 by 1990, and we believe that access courses have an important role to play in that.

Dr Twinn: What representations has my hon. Friend received about the disparity of per capita funding for students in polytechnics and universities? Will he consider reviewing the funding of universities and making the sum that is now available for research in universities open for competition by all bodies of higher education on the basis of the quality of their research?

Mr. Jackson: There is continuing concern about differences between the two sectors of higher education. We have to recognise that, going back to 1966 and the days of the late right hon. Member for Grimsby, Mr. Anthony Crosland, there has been a difference in mission between the two sectors. The institutions in the university sector have a research vocation and that accounts very largely for the differences in the unit of resource between the two sectors. We believe that the polytechnics and colleges have a contribution to make to research and we have recognised that fact through the programme of selective initiatives.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that, even with the 9 per cent. extra, the unit of resouce for polytechnics will be further reduced next year and that, even on the most generous information from leaks about the money available, it will not be restored to anywhere near the total before the cuts in 1981, so that universities such as Salford and Bradford will have at least 20 per cent. fewer resources than they had in 1981?

Mr. Jackson: The recurrent grant for universities for 1987–88 is up by 10 per cent. over the previous year and we have further proposals to make later today. There is continuing support for universities and polytechnics and there has been rapid expansion throughout the past seven or eight years.

City Technology Colleges

Mr. Cash: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is able to announce any further progress towards the establishment of a pilot network of city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rogers: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in relation to the proposed city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Sponsorship for four city technology colleges has already been announced. The Kingshurst CTC will open next year and the Nottingham CTC in 1989. I am making good progress in discussions with a. number of other prospective sponsors.

Mr. Cash: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiative in this matter. May I ask him to contact senior industrialists and get them to understand that we will not be able to provide the extremely worthwhile activities that the CTCs will be able to provide unless they come up with


the money? That is the meaning of self-help. That is the way to help enterprise and to help people to be properly educated for the business world.

Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. The encouraging thing about the CTC initiative is the way in which many companies and industrialists have come forward willing to provide money and support such as lending executives. It is a partnership between schools, industry and parents.

Mr. Rogers: Is it not true that the lack of real progress in this sector is due to the fact that industry and commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and chambers of commerce do not want to be associated with the half-baked idea? Is it not true that they have less faith in the idea than in the Secretary of State himself?

Mr. Baker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is far from the truth. Many companies, large and small, have said that they wish to sponsor colleges. There are several committed sponsors. I shall be announcing some additional colleges shortly, but I am keen to secure sites. The difficulty is that some local authorities are not prepared to make empty schools available. That is a dog in the manger.

Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite the change of control in Langbaurgh from a Labour-controlled authority to a Liberal-Labour-controlled authority, the site earmarked for the CTC on Teesside will proceed and that there will be no delay in putting that college on the map?

Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for the support that he has given over the past months to establishing a CTC on Teesside. I very much favour the establishment of a CTC on Teesside, as I do on Tyneside. We are pursuing the establishment of both colleges vigorously.

Mr. Flannery: Although the Secretary of State is clearly having great difficulty in organising the CTCs, is not the fundamental aim further to centralise education and strike a blow at the local education authorities? When that is linked to the opting-out process, is it not an all-out attempt, which could possibly fail and produce chaos, to strike a blow at local authorities, to smash them and to centralise education?

Mr. Baker: It is not a centralising measure. The interesting thing about the groups of people in the cities interested in establishing CTCs is their local links. One has seen that fact in Solihull in the west midlands, in Nottingham, in London and in several of the other areas that I am pursuing. It is not centralisation. It is the use of the vitality and energy of people at a local level.

Mr. Morley: Is the Secretary of State aware that in some areas in which the local authority is reorganising schools because of falling rolls, a CTC will completely unbalance the organisation and lead to good schools closing down because of this half-baked idea?

Mr. Baker: There is no reason for any good school in Britain to close. The cumulative effect of the changes that we will be bringing about will be to improve quality in all our schools and to encourage all schools to be better.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating and offering good wishes to the Conservative-controlled Nottingham city council, elected

this year, which has just granted planning consent for such a college? Will he note the fact that that consent has been given in the teeth of the opposition of the minority Labour group on the city council, and the majority group on the county council, who seek to deny that choice and benefit to the children of Nottingham?

Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend, who has been very involved in local politics in Nottingham, for the support that he has given. I am sure that future generations of children in Nottingham will benefit enormously from the CTC that will open there in 1989.

Mr. Fatchett: First, may I congratulate the Secretary of State on putting a brave face on his failure to attract industrial support? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his words at last year's Conservative party conference, when he said that CTCs would be non-selective? How does he reconcile those comments with the reported practice in the proposed Solihull CTC, where not only are children applying for admission being tested on a number of occasions, but their parents are being tested? Is that not conclusive evidence that CTCs will not simply be elitist but will distort intake for other schools in the same catchment area?

Mr. Baker: In the selection of children, primary teachers and head teachers will be asked to provide reports on candidates. A series of tests and interviews with parents will follow. The final selection will be carried out to ensure that the intake reflects the ability range of children of eligible age in the catchment area.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is it not possible that some companies have not yet realised the full potential of CTCs as a means of closing the gap between industry and education? Might it not be useful if, on the basis of a clearer blueprint, which might now be available as a result of my right hon. Friend's progress with four colleges, he sought an early meeting with the CBI?

Mr. Baker: Yes, I discuss these matters not only with the CBI but with other commercial interests. I assure the House that several sponsors have come forward. One approached us last month offering £1 million for a college in the north-west and there are several others. I shall be announcing the details when we have secured specific sites.

Education Reform

Mr. O'Brien: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will place in the Library a copy of those representations he has received in relation to his consultative proposals to devolve financial management to schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have placed in the Library copies of all letters received from organisations in response to this consultation paper. Without their express consent I would not wish to do the same with responses from individuals.

Mr. O'Brien: What responses has the Secretary of State received to his consultation document on devolved financial management in education? How many replies has he received from head teachers, who will carry the responsibility of the new arrangements that the Secretary of State is introducing? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to place in the Library an analysis of responses from head teachers?

Mr. Baker: I have placed in the Library copies of the responses of all institutions such as local education authorities, governing bodies and unions. It is appropriate that we should make all those available. However, I am not prepared to make available an individual response from a head teacher unless that head teacher gives me the power to do so and approves the move. The great majority of respondents supported the principle of greater financial delegation.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that head teachers and school governing bodies are in the best position to decide how best to spend their budgets? Does he further agree that his proposals will do a great deal to ensure greater freedom and responsibility for schools and head teachers, which must be to the advantage of the nation's children?

Mr. Baker: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Some 21 local education authorities have considerable experience in delegating responsibilities and budgets to head teachers. Such arrangements have worked successfully. They have been welcomed by local education authorities and head teachers, and the overall management of the schools involved has been improved. In nearly all cases savings have been made and the money saved has been spent as the head teacher wishes.

Mr. Fearn: When will the Secretary of State publish proposals for financing the training of governors for their new responsibilities?

Mr. Baker: As I have already said, we shall be bringing forward proposals for the training of head teachers and governors. I recognise that extra training will be needed for governors, who are taking on new responsibilities, and for head teachers, in financial management skills.

Professional Standards

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will bring forward proposals to improve professional standards in education; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): All our policies are directed towards improving professional standards in education.

Mr. Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the damage done to education by the theories of Fred Jarvis and his NUT brothers, which equate teaching with manual, unskilled industrial occupations? Is my hon. Friend surprised at the number of good teachers who are leaving unions? Will she do everything in her power to encourage good leadership for the vast majority of responsible and good teachers that we have?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right to say that some of the union leaders have not been tremendously helpful in promoting our proposals, but he will be glad to know that many individual teachers have responded to our proposals in writing. When the legislation is introduced, they will be greatly encouraged to see that their worries have been answered.

Mr. Barry Jones: To have high standards, is there not a need for high morale in the profession? Are the Government not guilty of creating low morale—indeed,

smouldering resentment—among teachers? If they want better standards, what will they do to improve the morale of teachers?

Mrs. Rumbold: The Government are anxious to know exactly what teachers say about our proposals. Many of the responses have been helpful, especially on the curriculum proposals, which are directly related to their professional responsibilities. In addition, during the past year the Government have made substantial inroads into the pay and conditions of service for teachers and many of them now believe that their morale is on the way back.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern in the teaching profession, among parents and in all sections of the community about the statistic published yesterday that only 38 per cent. of children over the age of 13 have religious education in their schools? Does this not lead to serious indiscipline among many children, who do not have a proper understanding of morals? Will my hon. Friend support moves to put religious education into the core curriculum?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that in our proposals we shall secure the position cif religious education and instruction in schools.

School Buildings

Mr. Doran: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will set up an inquiry into the state of school buildings; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will set up an inquiry into the state of school buildings; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): My Department has already undertaken a sample survey of county and voluntary controlled schools in England. The report is being published today and copies are available in the Vote Office. Schools in Scotland are, of course, the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Doran: Is the Minister aware that that survey estimates that it will cost about £2 billion to £3 billion to repair and refurbish school buildings to a decent standard? Is he further aware that the report on the survey was completed in April 1986? Is his failure to publish until today the result of incompetence, or embarrassment?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman's estimate of the cost is right. The figures available to me show a capital cost of about £2 billion. The report was published today—the hon. Gentleman should have thanked me for it — because we decided to give extra time to local authorities which had some difficulty in making their returns, and accordingly we set a later deadline.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise the problems that are created for the education of our children because of the many substandard school premises? When capital allocations for next year's programme are made later this year, will he ensure that sufficient money is made available to Lancashire county council and other authorities which have serious problems that must be tackled urgently?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman is a regular supplicant on behalf of his authority. He should stay around and listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement later this afternoon.

Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that the condition of school buildings in my constituency, and the shortage of science equipment in some of the science laboratories in those schools, owes more to the policies being pursued by the Lib-Lab-controlled Humberside county council, which is the education authority, than to the policies being pursued by the Government?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend pitches his question correctly. Much of the responsibility for the state of our school stock rests with the last Labour Government.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are spare school buildings in Wolverhampton and that they might be used for a CTC, as is much desired by the newly Conservative-controlled Wolverhampton council?

Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have noted that question. Responsibility for school stock, empty places, proposals for change and the availability of stock rests with the local education authority, which must make proposals to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that the Government's record on school buildings is one of appalling neglect, which was confirmed by Her Majesty's inspectors' report earlier this year, showing that 1·5 million children—one fifth of all school children—were being taught in classrooms so bad as to have an adverse effect upon their education? As his own report estimates that up to £3,150 million will be required to bring schools up to standard, at the present rate of plans how many years will schools and children have to wait?

Mr. Dunn: Since the report was commissioned we have spent a considerable amount of money on capital projects. Again, I urge the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to wait for the Chancellor's statement this afternoon. However, I should point out that any claim that the responsibility for the state of school stock rests entirely with the Government is wrong. The hon. Gentleman must also take some responsibility for when his party was in government.

Polytechnics

Mr. Baldry: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has had from directors of polytechnics to his proposed reform of polytechnic control and organisation.

Mr. Jackson: Most directors have warmly welcomed the proposed changes. The Committee of Directors of Polytechnics is planning positively for the new arrangements.

Mr. Baldry: The overwhelming support for those changes is welcome news to us, as it must be to polytechnic directors. The funding of polytechnics will increase next year by about £64·5 million, which is an increase of about 9 per cent. It will enable greater access to higher education, which will continue a trend, because last year the increase was about 6·5 per cent. better than target. Does that not show that polytechnics are continuing to fulfil a real role in ensuring that people have access to higher education?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is quite right. Congratulations to the polytechnics are in order. As I said earlier, polytechnics and colleges are now the largest sector of higher education in this country, with about 300,000 students. From my visits around the country, I am learning just how dynamic and energetic the polytechnics are.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister tell us why the Polytechnic of Wales was excluded from the proposals that were made for polytechnics in England, and what exactly is meant by the offer of corporate status for the polytechnic and other institutes of higher education in Wales?

Mr. Jackson: That question is still being considered by the Government. Obviously, it is a matter that the hon. Gentleman should take up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Watts: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a warm welcome for the proposals from the Slough college of further education, which will be free from local education authority control? Is he further aware that there is some concern about the present funding arrangements in respect of part-time students? Will he undertake to consider that matter in his further development of the proposals?

Mr. Jackson: We are anxious to encourage part-time students. Their numbers are growing and they form an increasing proportion of the numbers in universities and polytechnics. The issue is kept under annual review in the public expenditure round and I agree with my hon. Friend that it deserves serious attention.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How can the Minister justify a separate funding body for universities and polytechnics in the Government's new proposals for the funding of higher education? Is it not high time that there was one body to fund the whole of higher education?

Mr. Jackson: As I recall, the concept of the binary system originated under a Labour Government. It reflected a just appreciation of the existence of different possible missions for institutions in higher education. There is a difference of mission and one of historical background, and those are reflected in the Government's proposals.

Her Majesty's Inspectors (Report)

Mr. Martyn Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on Her Majesty's inspectors' 1987 annual report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have received one letter, from the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), which raised various issues in the context of Her Majesty's inspector's report, but have received no other specific representations.

Mr. Jones: Does the Secretary of State accept the report of his inspectorate and, if so, what does he intend to do about the shortcomings in teacher and library provision, but most of all in accommodation in schools? All those shortcomings are prevalent in Clwyd, which is a Tory-Independent council.

Mr. Baker: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to some of the phrases that were used in the report about provision, because he asked me about provision in schools. The report states:
unsatisfactory standards of provision are often more related to ineffective deployment of people and resources than to shortages of the resources themselves.
The report continued by stating specifically:
in many visits books were found to be ignored even though adequate stocks existed.

Mr. Madel: Is it not a fact that the HMI report also referred to improved standards of teaching, better standards in the classroom and parental appreciation for the wider curriculum and opportunities that this Government have brought about?

Mr. Baker: I am naturally pleased that in eight out of 10 of the classes observed the pupil response to the education provided was satisfactory or better, but that leaves no room for complacency. Throughout the country, in all our schools, for all our pupils—whatever their ability—the object of all our reforms is to improve the basic quality of education.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State recall that right from the foundations of our system of public education Her Majesty's inspectors have been wholly independent? In view of the stories that have been told and the speeches that have been made on this topic in the past two years, will the Secretary of State now tell the House that he has no plans to change the status of Her Majesty's Inspectorate to something other than what it has historically and properly received?

Mr. Baker: I absolutely confirm that one of the great strengths of the education system is the independence of the inspectorate. Although I am responsible for "pay and rations" the inspectorate publishes its reports independently of submitting them to me. It offers independent advice and I believe that that is one of the strengths of the system.

Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the biggest single difficulty found by the inspectors in those classes judged to be unsatisfactory was that children were not being stretched, and that, of course, leads, among other things, to disciplinary problems. Would it be fair to say that one of the difficulties of the present moment is that education authorities find it hard to let teachers go away for long periods for training? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend make it easier for teachers to teach themselves at home with the aid of distance learning and other techniques that have proved successful in other professions?

Mr. Baker: That is an interesting idea. I believe that my hon. Friend will be aware that we are now spending more than ever before in our history on in-service training—more than £200 million in special, specific grant this year. I echo something that my hon. Friend said, and that is that the constant comment that I find in the inspectors' reports is that far too many people in the system, teachers and parents, have far too low expectations of what can be achieved by children. I agree with my hon. Friend that if children can be stretched to their fullest ability they usually give much more.

Mrs. Clwyd: While the Minister may not yet have received many letters on this subject, does he not agree that there is widespread concern that Her Majesty's

Inspectorate's report said that sub-standard accommodation was affecting the quality of pupils' work in a fifth of the classes seen? Will he confirm that there are known examples of school buildings—highlighted by the report—where local authorities have acknowledged potential dangers to children, but have not had the money to d o anything about them? Would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself to those problems rather than introduce so-called reforms that only he and the Prime Minister seem to want?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Lady must await the statement by the Chancellor this afternoon on other matters—public expenditure and education. I publish the reports, whereas the Labour party produced expenditure reports every year from 1974 and never published one. I can understand why the Labour party will not talk about the management of resources in our schools when it made such a mess of managing the economy.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind that the inspectors' report highlighted the quality and efficiency of any given school and bearing in mind that nothing is more important for the quality of a school than the quality and efficiency of the head teacher, will my right hon. Friend give serious thought to further ways of improving the ability of head teachers to manage and direct their schools? Will he give thought to the possibility of a staff college for head teachers?

Mr. Baker: The latter idea has many attractions. My hon. Friend will be aware from the pay settlement for this year that we have increased the differentials for deputy and head teachers and have asked the Interim Advisory Committee to look again at the question of differentials.

Education Reform

Mr. Allen: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will place in the Library a copy of those representations he has received in relation to his consultative paper, "Admission of Pupils to Maintained Schools"; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: Copies of all letters received from organisations in response to this consultation paper have been placed in the Library. Without their express consent we would not feel entitled to do the same with responses from individuals.

Mr. Allen: Will the team on the Government Front Bench demonstrate the quality for which they are most renowned in the nation—their humility—and apologise, not only to the House, but to parents, teachers and the nation for the amount of time that was allowed for consultation on the proposals? Will they do a courtesy to the House by allowing a genuine and full analysis of the responses to all those consultations rather than trying to fob us off again? Will the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one question, please.

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is getting on. The hon. Gentleman has already asked two questions.

Mr. Allen: Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mrs. Rumbold: I think that I can remember the question. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we received in


excess of 14,000 responses to our consultation documents. The responses from those organisations which it is possible to publish are in the Library, but we have maintained the view that without the permission of the people who have written individual letters it is not possible for us to publish them.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is my hon. Friend aware that far from any further delay from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) or anyone else, we want urgent action to improve choice for parents? There is no justification for artificially restricting admission to good schools to protect inadequate ones.

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People are waiting urgently for action to obtain better and greater parental choice for their children.

Mr. Straw: Since an analysis of the responses has already been prepared by Department of Education and Science officials for Ministers, why are Ministers now keeping it from the House? Is it that they are scared to reveal that, overwhelmingly, the responses not only from Labour authorities but from Conservative authorities and parents' organisations indicate opposition to these damaging and dangerous proposals?

Mrs. Rumbold: The view of the majority of respondents on the principle of open enrolment was that parental choice should be met. Within the responses that we had comments were not expressed in such a way as to make it possible for me to say precisely how many respondents were for or against the proposals, or any particular aspect of those proposals.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: While I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about open enrolment, may I ask whether she is aware that many Conservative Members believe that we ought to have an experiment with education vouchers?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am not advocating an experiment with education vouchers at present. We are advocating many proposals which we believe will all lead directly to great improvements in the educational system for children in the maintained sector.

University Grants Committee

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what subjects he discussed at his last meeting with the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Jackson: My right hon. Friend saw the chairman of the University Grants Committee last week, when they discussed university funding.

Mr. Canavan: Did the Secretary of State discuss with the UGC the contents of his recent speech at London university, when he said that universities would have to look for alternative sources of funding rather than relying on the Government, who apparently seem to be abandoning their responsibility for funding higher education? Would the Minister care to elaborate on his statement, particularly in view of the speech by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) at Aberdeen university recently, when he said that the Government and the UGC were directly responsible for the crisis facing universities?

Mr. Jackson: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that Government expenditure on universities last year

increased by 10 per cent. and that there has been a substantial real terms increase since 1979. On external funding, it is notable that non-UGC earnings of universities have risen from one eighth of their current grant in 1979 to one fifth today. That is a substantial improvement. In regard to Scottish universities, already in the four months that I have been in office I have visited three of the eight Scottish universities and seen the splendid work that they are doing. The UGC pursues a national policy and does not discriminate on the basis of different regions.

Mr. Hind: Did my right hon. Friend, during the discussions with the University Grants Committee, have the opportunity to point out that the committee could give good advice to the polytechnics and institutes of higher education — namely, that the Government's policy to free them from local education authority control would allow them to develop more towards the university model, and thus benefit education in this country?

Mr. Jackson: We believe that autonomy is of benefit to all institutions of higher education, and we see the changes being made in relation to polytechnics and colleges as a major step towards that development.

Mrs. Ewing: How can the Secretary of State reconcile his claim that the universities are benefiting when Aberdeen university, which is based in the oil capital of Europe, is now faced with the prospect of closing no fewer than six departments? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the sense of outrage in the north and north-east of Scotland over that proposal? When the matter comes before the UGC on the 16th of this month, will he pay particular attention to the matter of Aberdeen university and try to reverse the position?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Lady should recognise that it would do no service to the Scottish universities to judge them by different criteria from those applied elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The same criteria are being applied to all such institutions, and they have been applied to Aberdeen university with the results that the hon. Lady has described.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: When my right hon. Friend next meets the UGC, will he raise the subject of the appalling incidents that took place at Liverpool university on 16 October last, when the visiting speaker, Mr. Ray Honeyford, was abused, spat upon and not allowed to speak, by so-called anti-racists? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it was precisely that sort of Stalinist abuse of free speech that the Education Act 1986 was intended to prevent? What assurances will he seek from Liverpool university that such incidents will not occur again?

Mr. Jackson: Some of us believe that the only serious threat to academic freedom in this country comes from within some of the universities and other educational institutions. That is why the Government legislated to ensure freedom of speech in such institutions. I ask my hon. Friend to write to me with details of the episode that he mentioned, so that I can investigate it further.

School Discipline

Mr. Anthony Coombs: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures the Government are taking to improve standards of pupil behaviour and discipline in schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 strengthens the authority of head teachers and governing bodies—which in future will include more parents—by giving them direct responsibility for maintaining discipline. Her Majesty's Inspectorate's recently published report on good behaviour and discipline has given schools guidance on best practice.

Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous support from parents for the strengthening of moral and religious education in schools, and its potential for improving pupil behaviour? Does she agree that not only should religious education be included in the core curriculum, as was suggested earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), but that, as with academic subjects before the hidden curriculum, specific benchmarks should be included in the national curriculum proposals?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right. There is indeed considerable support among parents for moral and religious education in schools, and we hope that our proposals will clearly set the curriculum as a whole within that context.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister confirm the views of many teachers that the main problem with 15 and 16-yearolds in regard to school discipline is that, however hard they work, they face a future with no prospect of finding employment when they leave? Is not one of the many dreadful legacies of the present Government their creatiom in many parts of the country of a generation with no hope?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Government have provided full YTS schemes for two years for pupils leaving school. Such schemes provide them with the opportunity of adequate training, which I hope will take them into good jobs.

Surplus School Places

Mr. David Porter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance he gave the delegates from Suffolk county council in July on removing surplus places in schools in non-metropolitan areas: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dunn: I received the delegates on behalf of my right hon. Friend. I advised them that in the light of the fall in school rolls my right hon. Friend expects local education authorities to consider the scope for rationalisation of school provision in all areas; and that in formulating proposals he expects local education authorities to bear in mind the advice in the Department's circular 3/87.

Mr. Porter: Is my hon. Friend aware that to follow those procedures in Suffolk alone would mean taking out 3,500 primary places and 7,600 secondary places? That could only mean massive school closures. In the light of that, and in the light of the Government's open enrolment policy, how will he further advise Suffolk county council?

Mr. Dunn: At the moment Suffolk county council is responsible for the maintenance and provision of schools in its local education authority area. Proposals to close schools are never arrived at easily, but are always dealt with by the Department of Education and Science in a quasi-judicial sense. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has proposals with him at the moment and it would not be right for me to comment upon them.

Nursery Education

Mr. Steinberg: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to extend the provision of pre-five education; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dunn: The Government's plans for expenditure on education allow for provision attributable to under-fives to continue broadly at today's levels. It is for local education authorities to determine the scale and nature of such provision in the areas that they serve.

Mr. Steinberg: The Minister must realise that three out of every five children are denied nursery education. The record of Tory education authorities is abysmal. Nine out of 10 worst providers are Tory-controlled councils, and the best top 10 are Labour-controlled councils. Will the Minister provide extra resources for nursery education so that the Prime Minister's promise in 1972 that the vast majority of children would get nursery education can be realised?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that most local education authorities are now increasing provision. Currently, 43 per cent. of all three and four-year-olds are in nursery or primary classes, compared with only 37 per cent. in 1979. This is the highest proportion ever.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Meale: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Meale: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why in the last Parliament members of her Cabinet voted against a measure to introduce free TV licences for pensioners? Can she also tell the House why her Government can always find time to help the City but never money to help British pensioners?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is not Government policy to give free television licences to pensioners. Such free licences would have to be paid for by increasing the cost of licences for the rest of the population and that would not be fair in any way. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the City raises about £7 billion a year for our balance of payments.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the House to give the Prime Minister and hon. Members who ask questions a fair hearing?

Mr. Rathbone: As life returns to normal in the southeast will my right hon. Friend spare a moment today to show her appreciation to the local authorities, the voluntary services, the emergency services and all those involved in helping the south-east return to normal? In particular, will she say a word of praise to the many people who have helped each other in their considerable


difficulties?

The Prime Minister: I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation and offer a word of thanks — I believe on behalf of the whole House — to all those authorities and workers about whom my hon. Friend spoke.

Mr. Kinnock: I associate myself with the Prime Minister's last answer and should like to include, of course, the electricity workers.
The electricity industry's own plan for development until the end of the century clearly shows that it can efficiently meet its investment obligations as well as obligations for production and supply without any substantial price increases. Does the Prime Minister agree that there is absolutely no justification for inflicting any significant increases in electricity bills on either the households or the industries of Britain?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there will have to be a very considerable programme for new power stations between now and the year 2000. There is a need for new stations because of increased demand and to replace old ones. That, in any event, will require a great deal of finance and a certain amount of money will have to be spent on the distribution system. The right hon. Gentleman is also aware of the amount that needs to be spent for environmental reasons on some of the coal-fired power stations. All that will constitute a massive amount of capital expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will fix a rate of return for the electricity industry, and it is up to

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister not realise that those obligations for power stations and other services as well as the clearing of debts have already been accounted for in the estimates made by the electricity industry? Is it not obvious that the only reason that the Prime Minister could advance for changing the financial targets of the industry is to ensure that privatisation is an even bigger giveaway and that those who buy that new private monopoly will make even greater gains? That may be very sweet for those who buy electricity shares, but it will be very sour for those who have to buy their electricity.

The Prime Minister: This year the electricity industry plans to achieve a current cost rate of return of something just under 2·5 per cent. That is not adequate to fund the investment programmes and the rate will have to be increased. That would be true whether the industry remained in the public sector or was privatised. In fact, one power station has been ordered since the Government have been in office. Sizewell B is the first of approximately 10 stations that will be needed. The money will have to be found, and that is something like £40 billion.

Mr. Kinnock: The United States privatised electricity system has not ordered a new power station for more than two decades. Is that the future that we have to look forward to? Will the Prime Minister also acquaint herself with the plan for electricity development right to the end of the century and acknowledge that it states that the only reason for changing the estimates would be if the Government changed the financial targets? That is exactly the kind of treachery that we will see this afternoon.

The Prime Minister: All the estimates show that by the mid-1990s we shall need considerably more power stations. Indeed, we will need up to 10 by the end of the

century. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that those stations have to be built and the money has to be found.

Mr. Marlow: With the possible exception of London, would it not be the height of political and bureaucratic masochism to run two systems of local authority finance simultaneously? Could we please have our community charge in one chunk?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the many representations that he has received and how best to meet them, if that is possible.

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 November 1987.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: rose—

Hon. Members: Where is the hon. Gentlemans tee shirt?

Mr. Banks: It is underneath my shirt.
There has been a great deal of talk in the House in recent weeks about sharks in the City. I want to ask the Prime Minister a question about another form of shark. These are rather lovely, pleasant and harmless sharks. I want to ask about basking sharks, and that is not a description of the Cabinet on holiday. Is the Prime Minister aware that the basking sharks in British territorial waters are being fished dangerously close to extinction by the Norwegians, and the Nature Conservancy Council has asked—[Interruption.] This is a serious point. The Nature Conservancy Council has asked that basking sharks be brought within the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Knowing the Prime Minister's great concern for sharks of all descriptions, will she ensure that speedy action is taken to comply with the Nature Conservancy Council's request?

The Prime Minister: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman knows far more about sharks than I do.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend send a message of appreciation to the French agencies of government today reflecting the seizure of the vessel containing arms over the weekend, showing, as it does, the increase in international co-operation in the unremitting fight against terrorism, from wherever it may occur?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the House will wish to join in congratulating the French authorities on the successful seizure of this large shipment of arms. Their action has undoubtedly saved many lives in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and I am sure that we would all wish to send a message of appreciation.

Mr. Geriant Howells: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware that many children in Wales are taught through the medium of Welsh. Will she give an assurance that our inherited language will have equal status with English in a core curriculum in Wales?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I could give an assurance that it will have equal status with English in a core curriculum. There will, of course, be plenty of facilities for teaching and learning Welsh for those who wish to do so.

Mr. Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her decision to appoint a counsellor or ombudsman for the security service will be widely welcomed within the organisations, but will she consider widening his responsibilities, thus enabling him to attend the regular directorate meetings of the security service with the status of a non-executive director?

The Prime Minister: No. The appointment was of a staff counsellor in accordance with a promise that I made to the House, and it has now been made. It is a counselling management appointment and it should not be widened.

Mr. Rees: Is it not a matter of regret that the Prime Minister chose to make her announcement about a staff counsellor by a written answer, thus preventing clarificatory questions and the widening of the issue, because there are other issues that should be discussed? Does her phrase
anxieties relating to the work of the service.
mean that the new counsellor could deal with the anxieties of the security service if a Government were to order it to carry out duties that had not been notified to Parliament?

The Prime Minister: The reply means exactly what it says. It was partly in response to people such as the right hon. Gentleman that we decided to appoint the staff counsellor. He will deal with complaints from those employed by the security service. In the first place, those will be dealt with by ordinary line management, but if anyone working for the security services feels that that is not sufficient he can go to the staff counsellor, who will be available to hear all complaints. A report would then be made to the heads of the services and the appropriate Secretary of State.

Mr. John Marshall: In view of the recent admission of failure on the part of the first-class post and the threatened disruption of the Christmas post, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the Post Office monopoly?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the Post Office and the threat that there may not be a sufficient service for the Christmas post, but I hope that that will not come about. As my hon. Friend says, it is true that we have powers to suspend the monopoly for letters. We would be prepared to use those powers should the need arise, but we do not believe that it has arisen yet.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Prime Minister aware of the CBI's overwhelming rejection of her business and poll tax proposals, which it does not believe will lead to greater accountability or to a clearer relationship between local spending and decision-making? If her political friends and all major professional bodies reject that tax system, and if those who are asked to impose it do so with reluctance, why is she inflicting it on a population that incresingly rejects it?

The Prime Minister: My understanding is that the CBI does not want rates, either. It wants rates to be cut considerably because it does not want to have to pay such a large proportion to local authorities. It wants to diminish its rates bill because it wants to cut its costs. The Government have tried to do everything possible to cut the costs that fall on companies from either central or local government. The community charge will help to cut costs for many businesses.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend please add books to the list of items on which she has said her Government do not intend to impose value added tax?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I really cannot trespass on my right hon. Friend's the Chancellor's statement. I am sure that he will make a most excellent Autumn Statement and rise to the occasion, as he always does. It will be good for both the short-term and long-teen interests of Britain.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Martin: Is the Prime Minister aware that I, no doubt like many other hon. Members, have constituents with fuel bills to the tune of £300 outstanding? Some of those families have an income of as little as £80 per week. Will the right hon. Lady consider the serious problem of fuel poverty that the high tariffs for electricity and gas are causing those families?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the heating additions to supplementary benefit under this Government have risen enormously and now amount to more than £400 million. He is further aware that the big increases in electricity prices took place under Labour Governments. In cash terms they were of the order of 27 per cent., then 48 per cent., followed by 18 per cent. in domestic electricity. Prices have fallen by 16 per cent. in real terms under the last five years of this Government.

Autumn Statement

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I am laying before the House today an autumn statement which, as usual, contains first, the Government's outline public expenditure plans for the next three years and the expected out-turn for this year; secondly, proposals for national insurance contributions next year; and, thirdly, the forecast of economic prospects for 1988 required by the Industry Act 1975. The forecast, of course, takes into account the likely effect of the recent worldwide falls in equity markets.
I turn first to the expected out-turn for the current financial year, 1987–88. The public expenditure planning total now looks likely to amount to £147½ billion, or around £1 billion less than was allowed for in the last public expenditure White Paper. The main reason for this shortfall is higher capital receipts by local authorities and new towns. Total spending on programmes, apart from this, is expected to be broadly in line with plans. Taking account of miscellaneous items not included in the planning total, the net shortfall on the expenditure side is likely to be slightly in excess of £½ billion.
On the receipts side, total tax revenues are likely to exceed the Budget forecast by almost £2½ billion. This buoyancy reflects higher than forecast economic growth, greater than expected profitability, and an oil price above the $15 a barrel assumed at the time of the Budget. At that time, I set a public sector borrowing requirement for 1987–88 of some £4 billion, or 1 per cent. of GDP. As a result of the higher tax revenues and lower spending, I now expect the PSBR for the current financial year to be only £1 billion, or ¼ per cent. of GDP: the third successive year of significant undershoot. Privatisation proceeds have, of course, made an important contribution to this year's low PSBR. But even if there had been no privatisation proceeds at all, it would still be the lowest PSBR for 17 years.
I turn now to the public expenditure plans for the next three years. Since 1982–83, public spending, both including and excluding privatisation proceeds, has been declining as a proportion of national income. There is likely to be a further substantial reduction this year, which will make this the longest sustained fall in public expenditure as a proportion of national income since the early 1950s.
In July, Cabinet reaffirmed the objective of ensuring that public spending as a share of national income continued to fall and, in particular, did not exceed the ratios published in the last White Paper. The plans that I am about to announce secure that objective.
New planning totals have been set at £156¾ billion for 1988–89 and £167 billion for 1989–90—increases of £2½ billion and £5½ billion respectively over the totals previously published.
For 1990–91 the planning total has been set at £176 billion. For the later years, I have judged it prudent to set aside larger reserves within the planning totals than I have done previously.
The reserves will, therefore, rise from £3½ billion in 1988–89 to £7 billion in 1989–90 and £10½ billion in

1990–91. The planning totals also incorporate an estimate for privatisation proceeds of £5 billion a year, which is unchanged from the last White Paper.
As I have indicated, these plans mean that public spending, excluding privatisation proceeds, will continue to fall as a share of national income. From nearly 47 per cent. in 1982–83, that share has come down to around 42½ per cent. this year, and by 1990–91 it will go down to 41¼ per cent., the lowest since 1972–73. The new proportions are lower, for each year, than those published in the last White Paper. This progress has been founded on our success in reining back the rate of growth of public spending.
In the 1960s and 1970s public spending grew by around 3 per cent. a year in real terms. In our first Parliament the real rate of growth averaged 2¼ per cent. a year; in our second Parliament it was just under 1¾ per cent. a year; and in the succeeding four years—the current year plus the three survey years — the real growth of public spending is planned to be around 1¼ per cent. a year, which is well within the prospective growth of the economy as a whole.
But while public spending as a whole is growing more slowly, the substantial reduction in public borrowing, which this Government have brought about, has, by reducing the burden of debt interest payments, made more room for programme spending. Coupled with steady economic growth, this has enabled the Government to provide additional resources for a number of priority services. In each case, the figures that I am about to give represent increases over the plans published in the last public expenditure White Paper.
First, health. An extra £700 million is being provided for the National Health Service in England in 1988–89, and an extra £800 million in 1989–90. On top of this, the Health Service will benefit from additional resources from the cost improvement programmes and from land sales. All this will enable the National Health Service to continue to improve services.
Secondly, law and order. Provision has been made for the substantial increase and acceleration in the prison building programe which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced to the House in July. This will provide 4,200 extra places by 1993. Provision for local authority spending on the police has also been increased significantly.
Third, education. Provision for local authority current spending has again been increased substantially. In addition, an extra £60 million a year has been provided for the improvement of school buildings. Spending on the universities will be increased by £115 million in 1988–89 and by £130 million in 1989–90. There will also be an additional £45 million in 1988–89 and £65 million in 1989–90 for science.
Gross provision for housing investment is being increased by nearly £400 million next year. This will not only sustain the rising trend of spending on local authority renovation, but will provide additional resources for housing associations, much of it to be used in conjunction with private finance.
Provision for urban development corporations is being increased by £65 million next year to help tackle the problems of the inner cities.
There are also substantial increases in provision for social security spending, which has been increased by £1 billion for 1988–89 and £1·9 billion for 1989–90. This is


partly because the take-up of benefits is likely to be higher than was previously envisaged. It also takes account of the uprating of benefits announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services last week, including the cost of compensating income support claimants for their average contribution to rates.
Spending on defence is to be increased by £230 million in 1988–9 and £490 million in 1989–90.
The additions to planned capital expenditure, for the public sector as a whole, amount to some £1 billion in each of the next two years. About half of this is for the nationalised industries, principally for the large-scale investment programmes of the electricity and water industries.
Further information about these and other changes is contained in the printed "autumn statement" which will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I have sat down. Full details, together with information on running costs and manpower, will be given in the public expenditure White Paper early in the new year.
I turn now to national insurance contributions. The Government have conducted the usual autumn review of contributions in the light of advice from the Government Actuary on the prospective income and expenditure of the national insurance fund, and taking account of the statement on benefits which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made on 27 October.
The lower earnings limit will be increased next April to £41 a week, in line with the single person's pension, and the upper earnings limit will be raised to £305 a week. The limits for the reduced rate bands will also be increased. The upper limit for the 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. bands will be raised to £70 a week and £105 a week respectively. The upper limit for the 9 per cent. rate for employers will be raised to £155 a week.
The taxpayer's contribution to the national insurance fund — the so-called Treasury supplement — will be reduced from 7 per cent. to 5 per cent., but this will not require any change in contribution rates. Thus, the main class I contribution rates will once again remain unchanged at 9 per cent. for employees and 10·45 per cent. for employers.
Finally, I turn to the Industry Act forecast. Growth this year looks to be turning out at 4 per cent., compared with the 3 per cent. growth I forecast at the time of the Budget. This is well above the trend of the steady upswing which began in 1981, and faster than any other major economy. Strong growth in domestic demand has been more than matched by the rapid rise in exports. Manufacturing industry is doing particularly well, with output rising by 5 per cent. This strong performance has led to a substantial fall in unemployment, which is now more than 400,000 lower than a year ago — the largest annual fall on record. Indeed, unemployment has been falling faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major country.
As I forecast at the time of the Budget, inflation in the fourth quarter of this year is likely to be 4 per cent. I also see no need to amend my budget forecast of a modest current account deficit of some £2½ billion, or about ½per cent. of GDP. Looking ahead to 1988, the prospect is for a continuation of the steady growth with low inflation that we have now enjoyed for over five years. As I have already indicated, the full forecast I am publishing today takes into account the likely implications of the recent falls in world stock markets in so far as it is possible to do so at this early stage.
This is clearly a time when economic forecasting is a more than usually hazardous business. But what is clear is that the strength of the British economy, and of our public finances, puts us in the best possible position to weather any storm. And that strength will also enable us to play a full part in the international co-operation which is more than ever needed today.
Subject to the uncertainties to which I have just referred, the economy is forecast to grow next year by around 2½ per cent. With North sea oil output now declining, this implies 3 per cent. growth for the non-North sea economy as a whole. Domestic demand should continue to expand, though at a slightly lower rate than this year, with consumer spending and investment growing at a similar pace. Business investment is likely to be particularly strong, rising by 5½ per cent.
With the United Kingdom continuing to grow faster than other major countries, and the oil surplus declining, there is likely to be a further small increase in the current account deficit, to about £3½ billion, or ¾ per cent. of GDP. Inflation may rise a little next year, reaching 4½ per cent. in the fourth quarter, by which time it should be on a downward trend again. The defeat of inflation remains at the heart of the Government's economic strategy. With continuing healthy growth in 1988, unemployment should continue to fall.
The progress and prospects I have described demonstrate once again the soundness of the policies we have followed over the past two parliaments. We will continue to pursue these policies in our third. Despite the recent deterioration in the world economic climate, the prospect I am able to offer the House is one of further sustained growth and steadily rising living standards, with inflation low and unemployment continuing to fall. We have brought this about by promoting enterprise, sound money and strong public finances. And that is what we will stick to.

Mr. John Smith: This is the usual sort of confidence trick that we expect from the Chancellor. In the first half of the public expenditure part of his statement he boasted about how he was reducing public expenditure, while in the second half he boasted about how he was increasing it. I ask the Chancellor to answer precisely whether this comes about because he has had to adjust his spending plans by the 1·5 per cent. increase in inflation, with the result that, although there are apparent increases in the programmes, there is no new money above the money that was originally planned to be spent. The difference in the apparent increases is accounted for entirely by the inflation factor. As we look through the plans for individual programme spending, does not that become clear?
There is a 5·7 per cent. increase in health and social services. Allowing for 4·5 per cent. inflation, that is a 1 per cent. increase in cash resources. The National Health Service needs much more money than that to cope with more old people and technical improvements, so the increase proposed is wholly insufficient even to maintain present services. Is the Chancellor aware of the anger that will be caused among those who work in our National Health Service, and who believe in it, even if the Chancellor and his Government do not?
Is the Chancellor aware that, with a 4·6 per cent. increase in the budget for education spending proposals, they are effectively frozen in real terms? There is a


proposal for some extra expenditure on school buildings and universities, but does that not mean that the main educational budget will effectively be cut? So much for all the rhetoric about education during the election and since.
On the matter of social security, why did the Chancellor not remind us that this is the Government who only recently, although they claim to have created a successful economy, felt obliged to recommend a freezing of child benefit? Is it not the case that in his proposals there will be a £300 million cut in income support so that the poorest in our community are not being specially benefited but are being specially targeted?
On the matter of housing, is it not clear that, despite some proposals for expenditure increases, the Government have failed to take the one single step that would encourage house building or house improvement all over our country—lifting the arbitrary 20 per cent. ceiling on spending on capital receipts by local authorities? Why have they not done that?
Where is there a reference in the statement to the Government's drive to regenerate our inner cities? There is not a word in it about the inner cities. There is merely a figure of £65 million for housing as part of the urban development corporation programme. The small amounts being injected for inner city provision are dwarfed by the loss of money in rate support grant and the increasing and continuing decline in regional industrial assistance. Therefore, we find that the Government's plans for inner cities consist of the rhetoric of regeneration and not its reality.
Similarly, public sector capital investment is planned to fall by £100 million a year in cash terms. That is a 3 or 4 per cent. reduction per annum for the next three years. So much for investing in Britain's future at a time of economic uncertainty.
On the matter of the nationalised industries, there is an elliptical reference in the statement to the electricity and water industries. However, we know that in just a few moments there will be a statement promising larger increases for electricity consumers. We know from the papers produced with this statement that the electricity industry produces a profit of over £1 billion. None the less, consumers will be asked to fund future capital expenditure to fatten up the industry so that the benefits can be reaped by those to whom it is sold after privatisation.
Is it not the case that the most important point about the national insurance proposals is that the Treasury contribution is to be cut further from 7 per cent. to 5 per cent.? That follows a cut in the previous year from 9 per cent. to 7 per cent. and compares unfavourably with the Labour Government's contribution in 1979 of 18 per cent. Therefore, we see the Government steadily transferring the responsibility for national insurance from the Government to employers and employees who have to carry heavier burdens as a result.
The Chancellor said very little about the real economy. In an exercise of complacency and self-congratulation, he told us so that all was basically sound with the British economy and that we could expect unemployment to fall. If growth is to fall from 4 per cent. to 2·5 per cent., where are the extra jobs to come from?
Does not the Chancellor concede that his published statement forecasts a £9 billion deficit in the balance of trade in manufactured goods by the end of 1988—the

largest deficit in the balance of trade in manufactured goods by the end of 1988—the largest deficit in the balance of trade in manufactured goods in our history? Does he recollect that that same balance of trade was in surplus to the sum of £5 billion when the Government took office in 1979? How can the Chancellor be complacent about our economy when investment in manufacturing industry is still 7 per cent., less than it was in 1979 and when output has just reached its 1979 level?
What of future growth? How is future growth to be achieved with poor investment in manufacturing industry, a total neglect of research and development and no plans substantially to increase expenditure on education and training to improve the skills of our work force?
On the international front, all that we had was some talk about international co-operation. Has it not been the failure of the G7 countries—and of this Government as a leading member of that group—to take action over the past year or so that has led to the present international economic difficulties? Does not the complacency of the Venice summit look shocking in the light of subsequent events? Why did not the Chancellor take the opportunity to announce a cut in interest rates as a British contribution, not only to stimulate our economy but to help international co-operation? Why do not the Government take the lead in convening an early meeting of the G7 countries to plan an international strategy so that when the American situation is adjusted there is reflation in western Europe to take up the slack, strengthen our economy and provide international equilibrium?
Is it not scandalous, above all, that at a time when public expenditure ought to have increased significantly, not only because of the pressing social needs of our country but because such an increase is now economically imperative, this complacent Chancellor has one again missed an opportunity?

Mr. Lawson: I shall try not to detain the House for too long, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a number of points and I shall answer them. I know that he is new to his present job, but he seemed to find it difficult to grasp how—as he said—public expenditure could be reducing and increasing at the same time. The point is that it is reducing as a proportion of gross domestic product but that it is still increasing in real terms.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to make out that the increase in real terms was, in fact, no greater than it had been before and that all that had happened was that the inflation forecast had changed. In fact, the increase in real terms over the period is now planned to be I per cent. a year, as compared with 1¼ per cent. a year last year, so that there is an increase in the real terms growth of public expenditure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that there was no real growth—

Mr. John Smith: One and a quarter per cent.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman got it wrong, and there is no point in admitting it from a sedentary position. He should not have got it wrong in the first place. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was no real increase in Health Service spending. In fact, Health Service spending is planned to go up by more


than 2 per cent. in real terms in 1988–89, and that is on top of the better value for money that we shall get through the cost improvement programme.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there were no extra resources for the poor. In fact, there are substantial extra resources for the poor, through the family credit scheme and income support. He said that there was nothing for the inner cities, despite the fact that I said in my statement that there was an extra £65 million for urban development corporations to help with the inner cities. That is by no means all, because the vast amount of money—far more than the Labour Government spent—that we are spending on employment schemes goes were unemployment is greatest, and that is in the inner cities.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was nothing extra for regional assistance. I have to tell him that expenditure on regional assistance will be increased by £160 million in 1988–89, £104 million in 1989–90 and £50 million in 1990–91.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the electricity industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be making a statement after me, so I shall be brief. The plain fact is that it is childish to quote the figure for the profits made by the electricity industry without relating them to the vast capital employed and to the very low percentage of capital that they represent. As for electricity prices, not only did prices increase far faster when the Labour government were in office, but we have today the lowest domestic electricity prices in Europe. But my right hon. Friend will deal with that later.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand how the national insurance fund works. It is worth pointing out that, between 1979 and 1985—the latest period for which figures are available—pensioners' income increased by 18 per cent. in real terms, whereas when the Labour Government were in office pensioners' income increased by only 3 per cent. in real terms.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that I did not say much about the economy, but I said quite a bit about the economy, including the fact, which he did not understand — this figure is the most important in relation to employment trends, which will continue to rise—that the rate of growth in the non-North sea economy for 1988 is forecast at 3 per cent. But there will be a debate on Thursday and I greatly look forward to discussing the economy in greater detail then.
As for our trade position, confidence in Britain was fully underlined today when we published figures showing the biggest-ever monthly increase in our foreign exchange reserves.
As for manufacturing, the plain fact is that under this Government manufacturing output has increased. Under the Labour Government, manufacturing output declined. But it is not just a matter of quantity; we must also consider the quality. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have seen the transformation that has occurred under the Conservative Government in manufacturing productivity, profitability and efficiency. If he does not believe me, he need only listen to the CBI, which knows much more about manufacturing industry than he does.
To my surprise, the right hon. and learned Gentleman contested some of my forecasts. At this early stage in his long career as shadow spokesman on the economy, I advise him not to get into the prediction game. That was one of the many mistakes made by his predecessor, the

right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). As a warning to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall read a prediction made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in January this year, in what he obviously thought was a major speech to the International Equity Dealers Associaton. He said:
A tax cut made this March would inevitably lead to conpensating action immediately the election is over. That necessity would face whatever Government was in post. Even were the Tories to win, they would reimpose higher taxes and make public expenditure cuts so deep that even the Conservative Party would be reluctant to support them.
The House can judge whether that is what I have done today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I fully understand the interest in this important statement. I remind the House that there will be another statement after this and that it will be impossible to call hon. Members to speak on that statement who are called to speak on this. Furthermore, there will be a debate later this week.

Sir William Clark: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his consistency in pursuing a realistic and practical approach to the management of our economy, which has brought it into a position whereby he has withstood not only an oil crisis but a coal strike lasting a year and the recent fall in equities. It ill becomes Opposition Members to talk down our economy when everyone knows that it is one of the strongest in the Western world.
I urge my right hon. Friend to be sparing in increasing public expenditure. We welcome the drop in the proportion of GDP from 47 per cent. to 42·5 per cent., and next year to 41·25 per cent. Would it not be a good idea to have a public expenditure target of about 40 per cent. of GDP, because the objective of our economic policy should be to have a nil, if not a negative, public sector borrowing requirement? I urge my right hon. Friend to ignore the anger and envy of the Labour party.

Mr. Lawson: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I have little doubt that, in time, we shall reach the target of 40 per cent. of GDP. We are gradually reducing the proportion of GDP which is accounted for by public expenditure, and that will continue. I should point out that, with the PSBR down to £1 billion in my latest forecast, we are very close to a zero PSBR. Many people in the United States today wish that they had pursued similar policies.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask those hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be called to ask questions, not make speeches.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Chancellor aware that these proposals will not go far enough to counteract the effect of the stock exchange falls, still less to deal with the funding crisis in the National Health Service, schools and universities? If growth is only 2·5 per cent., what does that mean for the Chancellor's forecast about reductions in unemployment? The great missing feature from this statement is an indication of what will happen if the United States, Germany and Japan do not make the adjustments which the Chancellor


believes they should make. Is he not rosily optimistic about all that? Is not the lucky Chancellor really pushing his luck?

Mr. Lawson: I forecast a 2½ per cent. growth in the economy for the year, but jobs are more closely linked to what is happening in the non-North sea economy than to what is happening with the North sea, which is highly capital-intensive and does not employ so many people. I forecast a 3 per cent. growth in the non-North sea economy, which will mean a continuing fall in unemployment as well as a continuing rise in the number of people in work.
We shall debate the international scene more fully on Thursday, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would not wish me to discuss it at length now. I shall do everything that I can to impress upon my opposite numbers overseas the measures that I believe are necessary. It is because Britain's economy is so strong that Britain's voice now counts in the world whereas it did not under the Labour Government.

Mr. John Townend: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on moving us towards a balanced budget. Does he agree that it is still vital that we continue the pressure on public expenditure because if we have to face a world recession revenues will fall off at a time when expenditure will increase? May I suggest that he sends a copy of his statement to President Reagan to show him that if he followed good Thatcherite economic policies he could reduce the budget deficit at the same time as reducing taxation?

Mr. Lawson: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary to keep up the pressure on public expenditure and to keep it falling as a proportion of total economic output or gross domestic product. That is what the plans in the autumn statement will secure. As for President Reagan, I am sure that he is an assiduous reader of Hansard.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement does not seem to have taken full account of what has happened in the world economy during the past two weeks? Does he accept that his most important responsibility is to avoid the recession that may be coming to this country? If he accepts that, does he not agree that the greatest boost to confidence that he could give would be to announce a drop in interest rates?

Mr. Lawson: As I see it, I have a double responsibility: to avoid both a recession and a resurgence of inflation. As for economic prospects, I said in my statement that at this juncture economic forecasting is an unusually hazardous business. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge, would be the first to agree. Fortunately, this is not the forecast on which the Budget judgment will be based. As he well knows, that will be based on the forecast that is made in February. By that time it will be possible to have a far clearer picture of the likely implications of what has happened in the stock market, of various developing events on the world scene, and the reactions of various Governments to what has happened. However, at this point I have given the House the best forecast that I am able to give.

Mr. Terence Higgins: I welcome especially the Chancellor's success in reducing public borrowing, which will at least facilitate a further reduction in interest rates. However, does he recall that the House was persuaded to agree to an increase in Community own resources only on the understanding that there would be strict budgetary discipline in the EEC? As there have been recent suggestions that we should again increase resources to achieve the same objective and pay twice for the same thing, will he tell the House what assumption was made about the limit on own resources when framing his Budget statement?

Mr. Lawson: The assumption in the autumn statement is that the own resources limit remains at 1·4 per cent.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Chancellor accept that we welcome the confidence with which he presented his statement? During the statement he allocated a sizeable increase to National Health Service expenditure in England, but the peripheral regions show a greater need. Will he confirm that sums have been allocated to those regions for their National Health Service expenditure so that we shall not have to make up such expenditure from our block grants?

Mr. Lawson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the figures before me refer to England. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Northern Ireland—

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: And Wales.

Mr. Lawson: And for Wales, indeed — have block increases according to the formula. They are putting out statements today which, I hope, will answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that it is understood, not only in the House but throughout the country, that a reduction in public expenditure as a share of the national income will give the best opportunity for the private sector to provide productive jobs for those people who are looking for jobs? That is what he is doing, and I hope that he will continue to do it.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition's obsession with the public sector at the expense of the private sector is quite extraordinary. It was significant that in his question about investment the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made no reference whatsoever to the fact that I am predicting a 5½ per cent. real increase in business investment in 1988.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: When the Chancellor started on his crazy walk of cutting the public sector borrowing requirement when he should have expanded it to bring down unemployment, he said that the reward would be lower interest rates. Now that he has got it down to what he says is the lowest level for 17 years, why are real interest rates at record levels and so much higher than those of our competitors? What excuse will he use for them next year?

Mr. Lawson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that unemployment is coming down and interest rates have already come down by half a point.

Mr. Ian Gow: Will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise the words in his statement that at the heart


of the Government's economic policy is the defeat of inflation? Will he confirm that the word "defeat" means that his target is to secure stable prices? Is it still his aim that after 12 or possibly 13 years of Conservative stewardship there will indeed by stable prices?

Mr. Lawson: That is indeed the target. My hon. Friend is right. However, we have never at any time during the more than eight years that we have been in office been able to say precisely by what year we shall reach any particular point in the road towards that, let alone reach the destination. It would be rash to give a specific date for that now.

Mr. Peter Shore: If the economy is as strong as the Chancellor has suggested, and if the PSBR is forecast to fall to a mere £1 billion, surely this is an almost unique opportunity not only to assist the British economy but to contribute to the international economy during a period of some danger of recession, by expanding outwards in Britain, reducing unemployment and increasing the national wealth?

Mr. Lawson: I should have thought that we were more than making our contribution by virtue of the fact that we have the fastest-growing major economy in the world. What the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting would simply lead to a new resurgence of inflation, and that is something that I am not prepared to tolerate.

Sir Ian Lloyd: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the broad strategy that he has revealed this afternoon and on its detailed application? He will be aware more than most that the long-term real future of the country depends, first, on the merits of its science base and, secondly, on the vitality of its technology. However, the figures that he gave us this afternoon revealed that he is prepared to spend only a mere 4·5 per cent. of the sum that he is allocating to social security on increasing the support for science over the next year, and a mere 3 per cent. of what he is proposing to spend on social security in the year following. Will he consider altering that balance somewhat more in favour of science?

Mr. Lawson: I know the consistent view that my hon. Friend has taken about the importance of science, long before that become the fashionable cry, and I pay tribute to him. However, I think that perhaps he misunderstood what I said and, if so, that is my fault. The science figure that I gave was the figure for university science. In fact, the total extra Government spending on civil science and technology in the autumn statement is an extra £200 million a year.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Surely the Chancellor accepts that if the American President and Congress accede to the complaints that he and other Conservatives have been making about the size of their budget deficit and move to reduce it without a corresponding increase in economic activity by the nations of western Europe and Japan, it will trigger the international recession that is now hanging so clearly over the world's economic scene? Therefore, as he claims that Britain is now the strongest-growing economy, will he not take the lead and come forward with major proposals for growth to avoid that recession before it takes us down?

Mr. Lawson: I am not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman has been. If he had been a close observer of the economic scene, he would have seen that we have had an

unprecedented period of real growth. Last year we were the second fastest-growing major economy in the Western world. This year we are the fastest-growing major economy in the Western world. In 1988 we shall continue to grow faster than the average as a result of policies which include a steady reduction in the PSBR. Far from inflated public borrowing causing greater real growth, all it causes is a greater burden of debt interest and the likelihood of rising inflation. That is precisely what happened under the Labour Government, which, I assume, although I am not entirely sure, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) supported.

Mr. David Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to control public expenditure of some £150,000 million to within a few hundred million pounds is a major achievement for any Government? Can he possibly explain to a new Member such as myself why it was not possible during the 1970s for the Labour Government to do that?

Mr. Lawson: It is a remarkable tribute to the improved control procedures that we have put in place over the years that we are able to control public expenditure in the way that we have within the year and, having made plans, we can then stick to them. As for why that did not happen under the Labour Government, I do not think I have time to go into that interesting story, but I advise right hon. and hon. Members to read Lord Barnett's book.

Mr. David Blunkett: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain how the proposals for social security increases accord with the statements made by the housing Minister that there would be money available under the proposed Housing Bill to fund the proposed increases in rents in the market economy? The proposals that we have heard this afternoon covering inflation and the modest amount towards the 20 per cent. of the rates to be paid by those on benefits do not leave any money available to take account of increased housing benefit. Therefore, those proposals will result in benefit being further taken from those already receiving it and transferred from those in need to the profits and pockets of the private landlord.
Will the right hon. Gentleman further explain to the House why, if he is willing to intervene to prevent a disorderly market, as he explained to us last week, and is willing to intervene with public expenditure to prevent a disorderly society, with increases to the police and the prison service, that he is unwilling to intervene to prevent further distress to be caused in our inner cities and to our unemployed by increasing rather than decreasing public expenditure?

Mr. Lawson: As I have said, public expenditure is increasing, although it is not increasing as fast as the economy as a whole, in order to allow more room for the private sector and the wealth-creating sector to expand. That is the policy that we are pursuing and on which we were re-elected by a decisive majority earlier this year. It is a policy with which we shall continue.
As for social security spending, I announced massive increases in that spending. I announced an extra £1 billion in 1988–89 and an extra £1·9 billion in 1989–90. A substantial part of that is increased housing benefit. In the housing figure that I gave, money is also included for the housing action trusts, which are part of the new policy on housing to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be welcome throughout the country and no less in the north-east of England where the Government's policies were exemplified last night with the night shift at the Nissan plant increasing production, increasing exports as a result of that production and increasing by 350 the number of people employed. It is because of those policies in the north-east that the Conservative party is the only party that is growing in the region.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right and the reinvigoration of the economy of the north-east is currently one of the most exciting developments in this country. Although I do not want to refight the election campaign that caused the Labour party so much distress, I must say to Labour right hon. and hon. Members that the plain fact is that if they continue to show themselves to be so out of touch with what is happening on the ground they will never get within a mile of winning a general election.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: The Chancellor should know that his hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has been misleading him and that the people of the north will view with great distress and great sorrow the statement that he has made today. May I also remind the Chancellor that the people of the north voted overwhelmingly for the Labour party? Perhaps he needs to read the statistics of the general election.
May I remind the Chancellor that the cuts in the regional development grants to the north-east are about 78 per cent.? If the right hon. Gentleman is truly serious about offering proper hope of future development to areas such as the north-east, he should consider that every authority in the north is asking whether he will address those particular cuts and restore to regions such as the north-east the sort of support and structure that will enable those regions to invest properly in the manufacturing industries and to bring proper new hope to the north.

Mr. Lawson: It is a complete fallacy to assume that the amount of economic activity in any part of the country is solely or even mainly dependent on what is paid in regional development grants. What matters is the prospect for industry of profitable investment and also industry's confidence in the future. That confidence has been transformed under this Government. But since the hon. Lady mentioned regional assistance, let me quote the figure again. This autumn statement shows that, for 1988–89, we have increased our provision for regional assistance by £160 million.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Although it is not apparent, I hope that my right hon. Friend is feeling just a little bit smug this afternoon. Is he aware that he is basking in the envy of finance Ministers throughout the developed world for being able to make such a statement this afternoon? I especially welcome the virtual disappearance of the public sector borrowing requirement. However, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the debt interest that the Government must pay gobbles up about half of the revenue from income tax and that, therefore, it is vital that we continue to keep the lid on borrowing and reduce the amount of money that we must pay for debts incurred by previous Administrations?

Mr. Lawson: I think that I liked the rest of my hon. Friend's question rather more than his opening remark. I believe that my hon. Friend is right about debt interest. One of the problems from which the United States is suffering at present is that, as a result of the policies that it has been pursuing since 1979, debt interest, as a proportion of GDP, has doubled whereas in this country it is declining. That decline, coupled with the real rate of growth of the economy, is one of the reasons why we are able to spend more money on priority programmes.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Chancellor of the Exchequer laid great emphasis, and rightly so, on the increase in manufacturing industry in the past year. Will he pay regard to the fact that the north of Ireland is the only region where there has been a decrease in manufacturing industry and where, at present, there are more people unemployed than are employed in manufacturing industry? Will he impress upon his colleagues that, unless unique steps are taken to redress that imbalance, the problems of the north of Ireland in relation to the general economy and, in particular, manufacturing industry will increase?

Mr. Lawson: I am conscious of the problems of the Northern Ireland economy and in so far as public expenditure plays any part, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that public expenditure in Northern Ireland is approaching £3,000 per head compared with £2,000 per head in England and about £2,500 per head in Scotland. I am well aware that there are acute problems as a result of the political difficulties and troubles in Northern Ireland and the fact that Northern Ireland perhaps has more than its fair share of older industries. Clearly the future must lie in the development of newer industries, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is keenly aware of that.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I commend my right hon. Friend and the Government for the extremely prudent way in which they have dealt with our economic affairs, which heralds well for the future, might I ask him to give to the House as part of his announcement further details about what additional resources will be allocated to roads because they are running into the ground? Secondly, will he consider future additional resources for the hospital service? Bearing in mind its outstanding success in treating more patients and in the advance of medical science, that service will need more than he has announced in the allocations this afternoon.

Mr. Lawson: The amount of extra spending on transport in 1988 will be £60 million of which a significant proportion will be on bridge maintenance, one of the most important areas of the road programme which needs attention. The increase of £700 million for the National Health Service is the biggest increase ever announced for that service.

Mr. James Lamond: If everything has been going so well for the last few years as the Chancellor would have us believe, and since he has managed to claw back more in taxation this year than he thought he would and spent less proportionately on public services, so reducing the public sector borrowing requirement to one quarter of 1 per cent., why was it necessary just a month or so ago, before the crash on the


stock exchange, all of a sudden to increase bank rate by 1 per cent., which was a savage blow to manufacturing industry?

Mr. Lawson: Manufacturing industry is doing extremely well, as has been borne out by CBI surveys carried out since the increase in interest rates by 1 per cent. on 6 August. It was necessary to do that at the time because of the overall financial situation in the economy and the risk, had I not done that, of a resurgence in inflation. Subsequently the position has changed and I felt it right to reduce interest rates by½ per cent. The hon. Member ought to accept the views of industry itself as to what the state of industry is. Industrialists are unanimous that it has never been healthier than it is today.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attainment of his highly satisfactory forecast must depend to a considerable extent on the maintenance as far as possible of satisfactory business relationships with our major trading partners overseas? To prevent the resurgence of economic nationalism and protectionism which did such terrible harm before the war, will he wholeheartedly endorse the British Government's commitment to the completion of the internal market in the Common Market by the target date of 1992?

Mr. Lawson: We are giving high priority within the Community to the completion of the internal market in its true sense, that is to say, breaking down the barriers to trade. Of course, the main danger to protectionism comes from the United States and, in particular, the United States Congress. I should like to pay tribute to the President of the United States who has made absolutely clear his determination, in so far as it is within his power to do so, to veto any protectionist Bill which comes from Congress.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Chancellor reflect a little on the state of the British economy? Has not the level of growth been unevenly spread? While there has been growth in service jobs and in manufacturing in the south-east and the midlands, industry, particularly manufacturing industry, has decreased in the north. Left to the so-called free play of the market, the north and Scotland will continue to decline.
Will the Chancellor say what the increase in defence expenditure means in real terms? Will he also give us further insight into his thinking on the international sphere? I do not believe that any thinking person predicts a slump like that of the late 1920s and 1930s if international Governments coalesce and take meaningful and purposeful decisions. The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect the President of the United States to resist protectionist activities unless he gives this House and international economic consultants an idea of his thinking.

Mr. Lawson: As for the wider economic issues to which the hon. Member rightly attaches importance, it would be better if I discussed those in the economic debate on Thursday.
Defence spending is planned to fall very slightly in real terms over the period ahead. On jobs in manufacturing and elsewhere, it is important to distinguish between what is happening to output and to jobs. Output in manufacturing is growing faster than output in the rest of

the economy. Because it is becoming more and more capital intensive, the growth in jobs, which is happening in both sectors, is faster in non-manufacturing industry.
As for unevenness throughout the economy, it is encouraging that the fall in unemployment over the past year — the biggest fall ever recorded — has occurred throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: While I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and particularly his skilful management of the economy, may I ask whether he appreciates that unless the Treasury resources in full National Health Service pay awards many health authorities will suffer dire financial consequences?

Mr. Lawson: Obviously the figures that I have quoted for the National Health Service include money for the pay awards that have been made. But there is also tremendous scope for getting better value for money out of the Health Service. That is what we are determined to do to provide a better service to the patient.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Chancellor accept that Government expenditure on regional assistance, even allowing for the increase of £160 million and the two subsequent increases, is still in real terms 30 per cent. below what it was when they came into office? In view of the persistent levels of unemployment of about 20 per cent. in many areas in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the north-east and the north-west, should there not be greater capital expenditure than the £1 billion increase which he announced to relieve unemployment in those areas?

Mr. Lawson: I am not sure where the hon. Member gets his figures from. The real increase in spending on the Health Service under this Government since 1978–79 has been 31 per cent. As for regional policy, I have already announced increases in spending and have repeated them several times today.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In presenting his excellent White Paper, which is a tribute to his good housekeeping, did not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor find it acutely depressing that, of the £800 million increase in overall public expenditure by comparison with the January White Paper, £520 million was an upward revision of our contribution to the EEC, with further upward revisions planned for next year, the year after and the year after that? Will the Chancellor explain why there was a massive miscalculation in January of about 52 per cent. for this year?

Mr. Lawson: The main reason is that we have secured a smaller proportion of the spending on the common agricultural policy than we had originally estimated. I share my hon. Friend's concern at the problem of Community expenditure. That is precisely why the Government, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, are so determined to get a proper reform of the common agricultural policy and a proper budgetary discipline introduced into the Community.

Mr. John Garrett: Will the Chancellor clarify the real percentage increase in university funding over the next few years? Is it not the case that it will not in any way match the reduction in university funding over the last four or five years and so


universities will continue to be run down and well qualified students will once again this year and next be turned away from their doors?

Mr. Lawson: I do not have to hand the figures that the hon. Member has asked for, but I assure him that universities will not be run down if they are run properly.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a growing respect, not just in the House but, more important, outside, for the coolness and expertise that he has shown in dealing with many of the problems that have recently arisen? Does he also recognise, however, when praising manufacturing industry, that there is a potential nutcracker effect in the rising cost of commodities and the burgeoning power of the pound, or weakness of the dollar? If the pound continues to rise by 5 cents a week, that very competitiveness will act to dampen down manufacturing industry and exports, which the country sorely needs.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend represents a constituency in Birmingham, which is one of the hearts of manufacturing in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Used to be."] It still is. Let me say to him first that, while various pluses and minuses can be drawn from the events of the past few weeks, commodity prices are not likely to rise much in the present circumstances. Secondly, manufacturing industry has to control its own costs, and it has done so very remarkably. If my hon. Friend looks at one of the charts in the "Autumn Statement", he will see that this year our unit labour costs have risen less than those of our major competitors for the first time since 1983.
The weakness of the dollar is not a matter under my sole control, although, under the terms of the Louvre agreement we are seeking as great a degree of stability as possible. British industrialists, who speak to me a great deal, are more concerned about our rate of exchange with the deutschmark and other European currencies. Nowadays Europe is a much bigger market for British industry than is the United States.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must bear in mind that we have a further statement and an important debate, in which there is great demand to speak from hon. Members. I shall allow two more questions from each side of the House, but I shall give preference in the subsequent debate to hon. Members who are not called to ask a question on this statement, if they will remind me.

Mr. Robert Litherland: When making the education allocation, will the Chancellor take into consideration any future pay claims by the teachers, or has he already fixed a rate of 4 per cent.? Does he not agree that a fixed rate would lead to disruption in schools?

Mr. Lawson: The teachers have been awarded a massive pay increase averaging 16 per cent., and that is fully taken into account in the figures. As for next year, the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay has been given an overall cost envelope of £300 million for the total cost of the increase.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Does my right hon. Friend accept that no tribute from the Conservative

Benches can adequately reflect his masterly stewardship of public finances? Can he trump his autumn statement by reaffirming the Government's commitment to the longer-term reform of public expenditure and, in particular, a fairer allocation between different parts of the United Kingdom and the different income groups within it?

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not believe, however, that it would be entirely appropriate to trump the autumn statement on the very day that it is being published.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Why is the Chancellor so pompous and so out of touch with manufacturing industry? Does he not realise that manufacturing industry is complaining about interest rates that are twice those of our competitors, about inflation far higher than theirs and about electricity prices that are already higher than theirs, even before the swingeing increases to be announced shortly?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be the effect on our exports to the United States of any attempt to reduce the United States deficit? While he may get his statement through with the majority that he has behind him, does he not realise that the fireball who has been appointed as Conservative party chairman will have considerable difficulty in selling this dubious prospectus to the country?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman ought to have a chat with his own Front Bench about the United States budget deficit. While he is still singing the old tune of bigger and better deficits, his Front Bench has now been converted—at least in regard to the United States—to a smaller one. That is what they are saying this week, anyway; perhaps they will change their minds next week.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, I can think of no better recommendation for a Conservative party chairman than that he should be a Treasury Minister.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: When considering Government borrowing policy, will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the advice that was given to him on 19 October 1984, exactly three years before black Monday, that he should emulate the Americans and boost the budget deficit and borrowing? According to that advice, the vitality and success of the American economy relied solely on high borrowing.
Does it surprise my right hon. Friend that that advice, which was given in Cardiff to a group of Welsh salesmen, came from the Leader of the Opposition? Does that not adequately represent the total bankruptcy of Opposition economic policy?

Mr. Lawson: It does, and that advice was given on many other occasions by the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Opposition Front Bench. It is the good fortune of this country that the Government rejected it, both at the most recent general election and at the previous one.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order afterwards.

Electricity Industry (Financial Targets)

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
As the House knows, it has been the policy of successive Governments to agree targets for the nationalised industries which set their financial framework and which enable them to plan their operations in a commercial manner. The industries then decide how to achieve these targets either through price increases, cost savings or a combination of both.
The present target for the electricity supply industry, which covers the three years 1985–86 to 1987–88, is a 2·75 per cent. average return on current cost assets. The Government have therefore been discussing with the Electricity Council the targets for the years ahead. Although the details of individual boards' targets have yet to be finalised, they have agreed an overall target for 1988–89 and 1989–90. The industry's external financial limit, which was announced by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, is based on this target.
In considering the target for these years, the Government have had to take into account the fact that, although in the recent past the electricity supply industry has had surplus capacity, that position is now changing. On current forecasts, the Central Electricity Generating Board envisages that at least 13GW of new capacity will be needed to meet demand by the end of the century. The industry also needs to modernise its transmission and distribution system if it is to maintain secure and economical supplies into the next century.
At a time of surplus capacity, it is possible to meet extra demand by using that surplus at relatively little extra cost. In the past, this has been reflected in a low rate of return. It took account of the fact that some of the industry's assets were under-used. That has resulted in the industry's prices effectively remaining unchanged since April 1985, and in prices falling by at least 15 per cent. in real terms over the last five years.
When new capacity has to be built to meet additional demand, the costs of meeting that extra demand rise. It must be right that the rate of return should rise to a level closer to that which nationalised industries are required to earn on new investment as a whole. This is currently 5 per cent. The Government have therefore agreed that the industry's overall target return on current cost assets should be 3·75 per cent. in 1988–89 and 4·75 per cent. in 1989–90.
The CEGB and the area boards are now considering their individual profit targets. Until this process is completed it will not be possible for the industry to be specific about the consequences for electricity prices. In particular, the Government expect the industry to consider carefully the scope for improving the rate of return through increased cost efficiency. However, preliminary indications are that it will be necessary to increase prices by an overall average of 8 to 9 per cent. on 1 April 1988 and substantially less in the following year. There is likely to be some variation in these figures for individual boards and different groups of customers. I am determined that Britain will have a modern, secure and efficient electricity

supply industry in the years ahead. This will involve a massive investment programme and that in turn demands an improved rate of return for the industry.

Mr. John Prescott: The statement by the Secretary of State confirms our worst fears about the intentions of the Government in privatising the electricity industry. They are proposing a totally unnecessary price increase that has to do with the confiscation of the electricity supply industry income so as to provide the Treasury with funds and fatten the industry for the process of privatisation. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the electricity supply industry has exceeded all the statutory financial targets set for it by the Government, the present target being 2·75 per cent.? In the last five years the industry has exceeded its targets by almost £1 billion. It has met all its investment requirements and presently has an excess capacity of about 30 per cent. It has reduced its costs and prices by 15 per cent. since 1982.
Does not the Secretary of State accept what the Electricity Consumers Council says, that achieving those targets is a success by any criterion? Can he confirm, as the Chancellor did, that electricity prices are already the lowest in Europe? Will he tell his right hon. Friend that, as pointed out by Mr. Baker, the managing director of the CEGB in his speech to the CBI conference yesterday, prices charged by publicly owned electricity industries—such as those of Britain and France—are half those charged by the privately owned electricity industries in America and Japan? Perhaps the Minister could confirm that.
Does the Minister accept, as pointed out in the Electricity Consumers' Council report on privatisation, that over the last five years the Treasury has confiscated from the electricity supply industry a total of £2 billion by way of the negative EFL targets imposed upon it? That was equivalent to £1 billion last year alone and by any stretch of the imagination that is an energy tax imposed upon our people solely for Treasury requirements. Is the Secretary of State also aware that the Chancellor's statement not only added £1 billion to electricity prices — which is what 9 per cent. actually means — but imposed negative EFL requirement of a further £1 billion? Does he accept that the £1 billion EFL requirement and the £1 billion increase in prices is a £2 billion burden on the industry and will be paid for solely by the consumer for Treasury and privatisation reasons?
Does the Secretary of State expect the House to believe that an increase is necessary for the investment programme that he has spelt out? The recent report by the Electricity Council called a medium term development plan makes it clear that the investment programme for both conventional and nuclear energy right up to the end of the century does not require a price increase to finance it, provided
that there is no significant increase in the industry's financial target.
The point is clear and the Secretary of State must admit that these taxes, these charges, have nothing to do with an investment programme or with sufficient resources to pay the costs in the industry. They are solely about fattening the electricity industry for privatisation. The Secretary of State's call for further cost reductions will encourage the: electricity boards in their desire to switch from British coal to further coal imports. Some estimates say that that will cut manpower in the coal industry by 50 per cent. That is a further price to be paid for the privatisation of electricity.
Is the Secretary of State not ashamed to impose this privatisation tax on the electricity consumer at a time when he is a member of a Cabinet that is removing the fuel allowances from many of our poor and our pensioners? We already have the obscene record of far more people dying from hypothermia than in any other civilised country. This increase is totally unnecessary and is imposed as a privatisation tax. It bears out precisely what we said, that privatisation means people will get less and pay more for it.

Mr. Parkinson: May I tell the hon. Gentleman, in the midst of his fine fury, that he supported a Government who put up electricity prices by more than 30 per cent. above the rate of inflation? Even after this price increase, we shall have seen prices fall in real terms. We shall take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman about price increases. The hon. Gentleman talked about the industry achieving its targets. In 1978 his own Government said that it was important for nationalised industries to achieve their targets, because out of the profits came the necessary future investment. Although an average rate of return of 2·75 per cent. has been achieved, the rate of return this year is 2·45 per cent. The industry goes into a period of a massive increase in investment with a rate of return which is less than half the rate of return that his own Government said was desirable for nationalised industries.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that electricity prices are the lowest in Europe. Even after these increases they will remain the lowest in Europe. The hon. Gentleman's point about public and private companies is irrelevant. He is comparing prices from different countries with varying exchange rates and is drawing the wrong conclusions. There is no reason at all why we should follow the pattern of American prices. When the hon. Gentleman talks about Treasury confiscation, he is describing the repayment of debt. The Treasury advanced substantial funds to the industry when it went into its investment programme and the money now being repaid is outstanding debt. The hon. Gentleman had better learn that repaying debt is not the same as confiscating anything. The hon. Gentleman has added together the price increase and the negative EFL and said they added up to £2 billion. In part, the price increases fund the EFL, so there is no point in adding them together. The increases are a source of the funds needed to produce the negative EFL.
The medium-term development plan is now out of date and the investment programme is being accelerated. The medium-term plan was introduced in 1986 and covers three years and seven years on the investment programme. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the tables he will see that. We are bringing forward a massive increase in investment. The hon. Gentleman said that the reduction in coal costs is a way of putting pressure on costs and said that the industry will interpret this as an invitation from the Government to reduce the price that it pays for coal. There are other costs that are capable of being reduced, and I hope that the electricity industry will focus on those. For example, there is a salary bill of nearly £2 billion. There is scope for cost savings. The industry has been achieving such cost savings and is convinced that it can continue to do so.

Mr. John Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those who wish to see the proper financing of the massive £1 billion a year investment programme for the future of our electricity supplies will commend his realistic approach to the problem of raising that finance? Will he confirm that this is the first price increase since 1985 and that if it is averaged over the past two years it comes to far less than the increases that were experienced when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State for Energy?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. He recognises, as I do, the need for a modern, efficient electricity industry if British industry is to have a chance in the future. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his second point.

Mr. William O'Brien: Is the Secretary of State aware of the devastation and damage that his statement will have on local government? The additional cost to the Leeds education department will be about £0·25 million and, to the local authority in Wakefield, which is in my constituency, it will be more than £1 million. It will have an even more devastating effect on hospital services in the Yorkshire and Humberside regions because we are already witnessing hospital closures in the Pontefract and Wakefield health authority areas. Is he aware of the damage that his statement will do to those authorities? Will he take his head out of the sands of political dogma and take note of what is happening in the regions?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman must understand that, if Britain is to have a modern industry, we must invest a great deal of money. Some of his hon. Friends came to see me recently to urge me to bring forward orders for companies which make electricity supply equipment. They recognised that a huge investment programme will produce many extra jobs. The proper price for electricity is a vital part of the cost of an efficient electricity service, and that is what we are determined to have.

Mr. John Watts: Does my right hon. Friend find it strange that the Opposition make constant demands for increased public investment in infrastructure and, particularly, for new coal-fired power stations, yet they seek to deny the electricity industry the necessary funds to pay for that investment? Will he explain to the Opposition Front Bench that, just as taxpayers have invested money in the industry in the past, it is right that they should reap some reward and that, if further investment is needed, it should be funded by electricity consumers, not by the taxpayers at large?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. The industry is about to embark on a £40,000 million investment programme. It did not order any new power stations for eight years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because of an overestimate of needs, as a result of which we had massive spare capacity. Twenty-seven of our coal-fired stations are now regarded as approaching redundant technology. Magnox stations will have to be replaced in the foreseeable future. Opposition Members must understand that a massive programme which in itself will produce many jobs in the industries that make the equipment—as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) said—is a vital element in the modernisation of Britain.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Secretary of State accept that the only people to gain from the totally unnecessary £1 billion increase in prices to consumers will


be the get-rich-quick merchants on the stock exchange, when electricity is privatised? Will he accept that that is the purpose of this move and that the losers will be the old and the cold, the poor and the sick who cannot afford to pay these prices? They may well argue that a better return would be gained from a proper investment programme in energy conservation which protects both the Government's investment in the CEGB and those people who find it hard to pay their bills, including the 1,200 who die as a result of energy poverty each year and the 90,000 who have their electricity supplies cut each year?

Mr. Parkinson: The chairman of the Electricity Council, Sir Philip Jones, said today that an increased rate of return is both inevitable and necessary. He recognises, as I do, that we need a modern industry. I am tired of hon. Members who come to my office to ask me to encourage the industry to invest huge sums of money in modern plant and then complain about the cost.

Mr. Peter Rost: Are not these higher targets, which are in the long-term national interest, well below real commercial rates of return? Will they not leave the private electricity producers with an enormously unfair competitive advantage against the CEGB, thus holding up investment from the private sector, which could give us cheaper energy?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is correct. We are aiming to achieve targets in two years' time that are less than the rate of return that a Labour Government identified as desirable for nationalised industries. We are moving from a low base to a base that is still below the figure that the Labour Government said was necessary.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Secretary of State aware that very few hon. Members and people outside the House will be deceived about the real reason for the statement this afternoon? Is not the real reason for the statement simply to fatten up the industry in preparation for privatisation? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that privatisation means the further demise of the mining industry, as was admitted yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who said that miners could lose jobs? Will the Secretary of State confirm that a minimum of 30,000 more miners' jobs will be lost through the privatisation of electricity?

Mr. Parkinson: The Government have invested more than £9,000 million in the mining industry since we took office. That is more than the market capitalisation of ICI. The Government have shown their commitment to producing a modern, efficient coal industry. We have an investment programme amounting to £2 million a day. If that investment is worked properly, and modern working methods are put into place to accompany the modern machinery, I see a bright future for British Coal. However, if there are wasteful overtime bans and waste and strife in the industry, the industry will have a grim future and it will have earned it.

Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no company in the public or private sector can hope to stand on its own two feet commercially with a rate of return of 2·45 per cent. and that any company that wants to be independent of Government subsidy must raise its rate of return and do so either by increasing prices to the appropriate level or by reducing costs and one hopes, by doing both?

Mr. Parkinson: I want to quote from the previous Labour Government's White Paper on the nationalised industries:
An adequate level of nationalised industry profits is essential to the continuing well-being of the industries and of the economy as a whole. They provide some of the funds for very large investment programmes necessary to maintain supplies and services to the public.
That is a Labour Government explaining the need for nationalised industries to make a sensible rate of return. We do not believe that 2·45 per cent is sufficient. My hon. Friend is right to stress that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a member of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs group of hon. Members which was courteously, patiently and constructively received by the Secretary of State for Energy on Tuesday, may I ask what assurance the Secretary of State can give to the power engineering industry about the consistency of the flow of orders that many employed in the industry so badly need over the next two or three years? Will he comment on the financial assessment in relation to privatised nuclear stations?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is right. Our power supply industry has been through a very difficult time. As I said earlier, no power station was ordered for eight years. That period is now coming to an end and we see a steady flow of orders for power stations to be commissioned in this country between now and the year 2000 and for a considerable time after that. We can look forward to a period of growth and stability in that industry. One of the principal limiting factors at the moment is the length of time taken by public inquiries. However, we are anxious to get ahead and make major investment in the industry and that means orders for the power supply industry. In our manifesto we made it quite clear that the Government are committed to a continuing nuclear programme. I have to fit that commitment into our plans to privatise the industry and I am doing that.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Although I am a supporter of the privatisation of electricity and although I understand the need for an investment programme and the desirability of increasing the rate of investment, at the risk of sounding a slightly discordant note, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend appreciates that the prospect of an increase of the order of 9 per cent. is a cause for some concern, particularly as one contemplates the effect that that increase might have on the low paid and those on social benefits? Will he give the House an undertaking before we move to price increases of the order of 9 per cent. in what is after all an essential service that he will have discussions with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to see whether they can take into account the considerable effect that such an increase would have on certain sections of the community?

Mr. Parkinson: No Minister likes to come to the House of Commons to announce that there will be a price increase of this size. I believe that a failure of supply in the years ahead is a much more fundamental threat. It is absolutely vital that we modernise the industry. Of course the figures feed through into the retail price index and most benefits reflect that. However, I note my hon. Friend's comments and I am sure that my right hon.


Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will also have heard him.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Following the question from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) may I ask whether the Secretary of State really appreciates the impact that his announcement today will have on those on low, fixed incomes and particularly on old-age pensioners? While the Secretary of State has said that the increase will feed into the RPI, does he agree that it is a cruel deception of our old-age pensioners for the Secretary of State for Social Services to come to the House last week and announce a pension increase on the basis of a 4·2 per cent. cost of living increase and then for the Secretary of State for Energy to come here today and take back a very large proportion of that which was given to our pensioners by his right hon. Friend last week? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that millions of old-age pensioners in this country tonight will wish that he had remained in the wilderness a little longer?

Mr. Parkinson: I want to repeat the point that I made earlier. I believe that it is absolutely vital for the elderly and everyone else that we have secure supplies of electricity. That is what the Government are trying to ensure. The exact details of the increases have not been settled for the reasons that I have explained and they will take place next April. They will not take place this winter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stress that to pensioners who express concern to him.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Is it not hypocritical of the Opposition to complain of the prospect of higher electricity prices when their policies for coal would increase the price of coal and therefore the price of electricity enormously? With regard to a greater contribution from nuclear energy, will my right hon. Friend confirm that a higher contribution from that source would tend to keep electricity prices down? Does he agree that the Opposition's opposition to projects such as Sizewell B and Hinkley Point C remove their right to claim to be the friend of the old-age pensioner?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right about coal costs. The electricity industry pays a substantial premium to British Coal for the right to use British coal, because it recognises that British Coal is in the process of modernising itself and it recognises the long-term value of a reliable, competitive supplier. Opposition Members today have really asked why we did not pay more for our coal. That would have increased prices still higher. We believe that the country needs a diverse source of energy supplies. We believe that a nuclear component in the electricity supply industry is essential as a reliable long-term supplier of base load power.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Was the Secretary of State for Energy in the Chamber when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was answering questions on the Autumn Statement? Did he hear the Chancellor say to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) that he expected basic commodity prices to fall? If he did, what is the Secretary of State doing making this statement?

Mr. Parkinson: I do not need to answer for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He seemed to be doing pretty well for himself when I listened to him and the hon. Gentleman did not seem to be able to lay a finger on him. I am dealing with the cost of electricity and the need to improve the rate of return, which is to improve the security of supply.

Mr. Edward Leigh: How does the praise lavished on the cheapness of French electricity by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) today lie side by side with the Labour party's opposition to any investment in and expansion of our nuclear power industry?

Mr. Parkinson: Far be it from me to defend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), but I do not think that he did say that our prices were higher than the French. He said that French prices were higher than ours. However, I agree that the Labour party has a problem because the nuclear industry is a vital part of our future plans and we need it to secure supplies and to give us diversity. Yet the Labour party opposes it without suggesting anything but to use more coal at a higher price, which will shove up prices even further.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Secretary of State accept that everything that he has said today about the cost of capital expenditure on the electricity supply industry has been common knowledge to people with an interest in the matter for 18 months? Does he accept that the medium-term development plan specifically said that capital expenditure until the year 2002 had been taken into account in the electricity supply industry's pricing policy and went on to say that retail tariff increases would be below the rate of general inflation? Will the Secretary of State come clean and admit, as all Labour Members know, that he is fattening the calf before the privatisation of the industry?

Mr. Parkinson: That is not true, as I have said before. I have explained why we are doing it and the reasons that I have given are the true reasons. I am not prepared to pander to the hon. Gentleman's prejudices.

Mr. Michael Jack: Are any of the proposed increases in charges required for any reason other than the achievement of financial returns? Secondly, to help mitigate the burden of those increased charges on some people, will my right hon. Friend, in his discussions with members of the electricity supply industry, suggest an extension of the Economy Seven hours? Thirdly, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the increased returns that will be derived as a result of his statement will ensure that there will be no delay in Sizewell B and thus in orders coming to the nuclear industry based in my constituency, which will save jobs?

Mr. Parkinson: Financial returns are not an end in themselves; they are being achieved so that they generate an income base which will support investment, the need for which I have tried to explain to the House today. I note what my hon. Friend says about Economy Seven and the nuclear industry and I am pleased to tell him that Sizewell B is going ahead to schedule. Orders worth more than £700 million have already been placed with British companies for equipment for that, and it is on target to be finished on the set date.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Did the Secretary of State overhear the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), in response to the charge that the right hon. Gentleman was fattening the calf for privatisation, exclaim "Nothing wrong with that"? Does the greedy and unpleasant face of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire speak for the official Conservative party or does the right hon. Gentleman's Uriah Heep hand-wringing reflect the official view? Will not many British people despise the moral imbalance between such a swingeing increase and the fact, which the right hon. Gentleman has refused to confront in his answers, that at the same time the Government are withdrawing the pitiful means of support for those who rely on fuel subsidy?

Mr. Parkinson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was a Member when the Labour Government were putting up prices by 30 per cent. more than the rate of inflation and I do not think that he was listening when I told him that, even after this increase, price increases in the past six years will have been lower than the rate of inflation. There will have been a fall in the real price, something that the Labour Government never managed to achieve, despite all its post-dated concern.

Mr. Eric Forth: I rise in response to popular demand from the Opposition.
Will my right hon. Friend remind us of the trend in prices in the electricity industry over the past few years, before and taking into account, the projected increase that he has mentioned? Can he confirm that any distinction between consumers of electricity arid taxpayers is rather artificial, since we are all in our different ways taxpayers and consumers?

Mr. Parkinson: On price increases, the simple fact is that for five years under the Labour Government prices increased by 30 per cent. more than a high rate of inflation and under this Government, after this proposed increase, prices will still have increased by less than the rate of inflation. There will have been a real reduction in prices.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the price increases that he has announced today will be a severe burden to Britain's manufacturing industry, particularly to high energy users such as the glass industry? How much of the 13 GW of new capacity that he has announced for before the end of the century will be nuclear and how much will be coal-fired?

Mr. Parkinson: Six of the stations will be pressurised water reactors and four will be major coal-fired stations and they are roughly equal in size. There is also a substantial investment programme to clean up the emissions from the existing stations, costing about £800 million, which must also be taken into account as part of the cost of maintaining a coal-burning capacity. Therefore, substantial money will be spent on the coal side of generation as well as on the nuclear side.

Mr. Bob Hayward: Can my right hon. Friend give the approximate number of jobs that will be involved in the modernisation programme over the next few years? Will not the vast majority of those jobs be concentrated in the midlands, the north of England and Scotland, and thus be a major economic generator in those regions?

Mr. Parkinson: I cannot give my hon. Friend the figure for which he asks, but I can tell him that an industry which

has been starved of orders—the industry that supplies the electricity supply industry—will receive more than £40,000 million worth of orders over the next 12 years, and that must be good news. Moreover, virtually all those jobs are in the regions and in Scotland.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is the Secretary of State aware of the serious damage that the price of electricity has caused the poorest and most vulnerable sections of Britain who now perceive energy as almost a luxury? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that disconnections have had a direct effect on the ability of such people to heat their homes during the winter. Is it not clear that the Government are placing profit beyond the recognition of people's needs, which will create a clear understanding of the Tory party's energy policy?

Mr. Parkinson: A major programme which is running at the moment will be enlarged to help the elderly in particular to use energy more efficiently. It is tragic that: at present people of limited means cannot afford to spend money on saving money by insulating their houses properly. We have a major programme, for which I have obtained extra funding, to help with that. We hope this winter to complete another 150,000 houses, which will take us well beyond the half million. Therefore, we have a programme for helping the most vulnerable to save on their energy bills.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that by April next year there will have been a three-year period with no increase in electricity prices, equivalent to a reduction in real terms and prices of some 15 per cent? Therefore, even with the new increases, we are still ahead in ensuring a reduction in real terms and prices overall for the consumer, the pensioner and everyone who uses electricity in Britain.

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is correct. Prices have been stable, which means that when inflation is taken into account there has been a real reduction in prices over the past five, not just the past three, years. The period of spare capacity is coming to an end and we are entering into a period when we must make substantial investment, which must be paid for. Of course it is with reluctance that we propose these increased rates of return. We are doing so to enable the industry to fund necessary programmes.

Mr. Jim Cousins: As for the starvation of orders during the past eight years, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, does he agree that he appears to be an innocent casualty of lack of forethought and planning by others? Does he further agree that 3,000 power engineering workers on Tyneside who have paid for the lack of investment and lack of forethought with their jobs during the past two years and will pay through their electricity bills because of unnecessary price increases during the next two years, will have paid rather a high price? Does he further agree that privatisation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not fair to ask a second question when so many hon. Members wish to get in.

Mr. Parkinson: The starvation of orders about which I spoke arises because a major nationalised industry made a major howler in predicting the energy requirement for the country. That created overcapacity, and as a result. the


industry had a period of plenty followed by one of famine. The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the fact that his party was in government for much of that time.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Although I recognise the need for proper returns, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the number of thefts and disconnections? Is he aware of the new cashless token meters which are being developed by the North-Western electricity board?

Mr. Parkinson: I know that the problem of disconnection is serious, and I have taken up the matter with the industry and the area boards. I know that they are aware of the problems faced by the elderly. I shall draw that point to the attention of the industry again.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Today's announcement is good news to Babcocks in Paisley, which has had many redundancies recently. Does the Minister intend to meet the chairmen of the regional electricity boards and ask them how many cut-offs there have been in the past financial year and if this increase will mean more electricity cut-offs?

Mr. Parkinson: The House should know that it is in the Register of Members' Interests that I was a non-executive director of Babcocks for some years. I learnt of the problems for the electricity supply industry when there is a flood of orders and then there is none. I know this from experience; I have been to Renfrew, and seen the huge investment there. There is a factory capable of excellent work. It has a first-class work force, but the one thing it does not have is orders. The Government are determined to create a modern industry using modern equipment.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had it not been for the privatisation programme for the electricity industry, the Opposition would have been faced with the embarrassment of a Secretary of State for Energy taking the advice of the Labour party to raise the rate of return on assets? Does he also agree that, whether the electricity industry is in private or state ownership, investment is needed to replace the Magnox stations which are running out of time? It would make no difference whether that industry was in private or public hands.

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right that in this context the question of privatisation is a red herring. Whether the industry remains in public ownership or is privatised, investment will have to be made. A previous Labour Government who instituted a policy on nationalised industries said that a proper rate of return is a vital part of an investment programme.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very important debate ahead of us. I will allow questions to go on until 5.35 pm. I hope that every hon. Member who is rising in his place will be able to ask a brief question by then.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that if these proceedings were televised millions of people would have had the opportunity to see the Secretary of State, who has shown no adequate understanding of the heavy blow that will be dealt to those on low incomes when the increases come into effect? Why

should pensioners and others on low incomes have to bear the brunt of the increases and suffer the consequences during the winter months when they cannot heat their homes adequately now? Why should they suffer all that just so that the Government can pave the way for privatisation?

Mr. Parkinson: I shall return the compliment to the hon. Gentleman — why should they have suffered massive real increases under his Government, when under this Government they have benefited from real reductions? Quite frankly, his crocodile tears are being shed rather late. If he had been a little more forceful when his party was in government, perhaps he would have had more influence. We will not take any lectures from him.

Mr. David Clelland: Further to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier responses on the future of the power engineering industry, which will come as welcome news to my constituents who rely on Northern Engineering Industries for their livelihoods, will he assure the House that no part of the investment programme that he has announced today will be delayed by his determination to carry on with privatisation?

Mr. Parkinson: I wish to make it clear that the prime consideration is the security of supply. Recently we have had a good example of the dangers of an interruption to supply. Our transmission system is becoming old and needs modernising. Our power generation industry needs modern power generating plant. We are determined to ensure that that modernisation is not interrupted—it is top priority.

Mr. Frank Doran: Has not the Secretary of State made it clear that he intends to privatise the industry, and no question about it? Why is there such a rush to press ahead with the investment, which he described as being much needed, under the umbrella of the public sector? Why is he not prepared to wait until the industry is privatised and then allow it to go to the market in the usual way to raise the money and to suffer the consequences of that and of imposing price increases?

Mr. Parkinson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was listening to his hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) who just asked me to give an assurance that the investment programme would not be interrupted. The point that I am trying to put across to the House is that the industry must develop an income base that will support the huge investment programme that is needed both now, when it is in the public sector, and later when it is in the private sector. We shall not allow the investment programme to be interrupted pending privatisation, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Stanley Orme: If a price increase is so essential, why were we not told about it in June before the election? Why, suddenly, are we faced with a 9 per cent. increase? I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to admit that that increase is not necessary for the investment programme. Why does he not come clean with the House and admit that privatisation is at the centre of the issue?

Mr. Parkinson: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very well informed on these matters. I assure him that privatisation was not part of the consideration about this increase. The reason I have come to the House to announce revised rates of return is that the Government set targets for three years, and that period ends next April.


We must now set new targets for the industry. The chairman of the Electricity Council agrees that an improved rate of return is necessary. We are setting new targets at the end of a three-year term and in circumstances where the position has changed.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Does the Secretary of State accept that the proposed price increase will have a disproportionate effect on those on low or no income? Does that not make a mockery of the Chancellor's purported generosity when he made his Autumn Statement only a short time ago? Is it not true that consumers, who are the majority in this country, are being invited to pay high prices simply to boost the profitability of the industry to make it attractive to investors, who are a small minority?

Mr. Parkinson: The consumer is being invited to pay a higher price so that the industry, on which we all depend for our electricity supplies, can modernise itself and get ready to meet the capacity gap that has been identified and that everybody agrees exists.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that now that he has heard what has been said from the Labour Benches, his statement is a disgrace and he is a disgrace for making it? Is he aware that his party and his Government knew about this increase before the election, but said nothing about it? They never said—[Interruption.] It is no good Ministers shaking their heads. They never said a word about it. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman something that he does not know—that as sure as night follows day, standing charges will be increased alongside the increase he has anounced today? He probably did not know about that.

Mr. Parkinson: I think that we have just seen a fine example of the hon. Gentleman at his self-indulgent worst.

Mr. Haynes: You are such a smooth one—

M. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Haynes: I will see the right hon. Gentleman outside.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: What advice does the right hon. Gentleman have for those living in the

north of Ireland, where the cost of electricity is 33 per cent. more than in any other region, where the cost of coal is 12 per cent. more and where there is no mains gas? Will he consider this matter and try to impress upon his colleagues that there should be some recognition of that disparity in the Social Security Bill, and especially in the social fund that, unfortunately, will come upon us very soon?

Mr. Parkinson: I think that I am right in saying that my announcement does not cover Northern Ireland and does not affect Northern Ireland prices. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman does not ususally speak on Scotland, but can I assume that his announcement about the return on capital employed and the likely prices impact will not apply to Scotland? Does he accept that, because of what he had said, there will be widespread anxiety about what might happen north of the border? Does he further accept that the position is different in Scotland, with a different investment pattern over the next few years? Given those circumstances and the fact that the combined profit for the two Scottish boards in 1986 was £422 million, would it not be monstrous if Scotland was threatened with the sort of increases to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? If he cannot reassure us on that point, will he use his considerable powers of persuasion to ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the House soon to clarify the position?

Mr. Parkinson: I will do that. I think that I know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I do not wish to give it in case it is wrong. These matters are in the province of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However—[Interruption.]s I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is proving only that an empty vessel makes the loudest noise, and doing so very successfully. I will ensure that the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) are brought to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you reconsider your practice of taking points of order that arise out of statements at the end of all the statements, rather than at the end of each statement when the appropriate Minister is present? It will be within your recollection that in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) the Chancellor of the Exchequer said threateningly, "If the universities are run properly". The clear implication of that was that he, as Chancellor, was making a judgment on a matter that was not the direct responsibility of the Treasury. If the Chancellor makes such a remark, in that context and in that tone that he used, should he not be given an opportunity to explain exactly what he meant and why he thinks the universities are not run properly? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wants more pressure to be put on them.

Mr. Speaker: I shall keep this matter constantly in mind, but I think the whole House agrees that the current practice is of benefit to the House. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting merely leads to a continuation of Question Time, which I think the whole House agrees is not the proper way to proceed. However, I shall certainly bear the matter very much in mind.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your guidance. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Energy for his statement on the electricity supply industry. As it is clear from his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that he is not responsible for electricity supply in Scotland, should not the Secretary of State for Scotland have been present to inform us of the implications for the electricity supply industry in Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Government Front Bench. I heard what the Secretary of State has just said about that matter.

BILL PRESENTED

RIGHT OF PRIVACY

Mr. William Cash presented a Bill to establish a right of privacy, to make amendments to the law of evidence, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday I I December and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 4105/87 on the pricing of medicinal products for human use be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Orders of the Day — Employment Bill

Order for Second reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Liberal party.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
I shall be brief in opening the debate. The Bill is being presented against the background of two welcome trends — the largest sustained fall in unemployment since records began, and the lowest monthly total since the war of days lost because of industrial disputes.
Unemployment has fallen not just over one month, or even two or three, but for 15 months in succession. In the year to September adult unemployment fell by over 400,000, which is a record for this country, and faster than in any other major industrial country. This summer there were 370,000 more people in jobs than last year.
Nor has that improvement been confined to just one area or region. The biggest falls in the rate of unemployment have been in Wales, the west midlands and the north-west. Within the overall total, the number of long-term unemployed people—the number of people who have been out of work for more than a year—has fallen by 110,000 in 12 months to the lowest level for three years. There are fewer unemployed 16-year-old school leavers this September than in any year since 1974.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are discussing the so-called Employment Bill, which is an anti-trade union Bill, yet the Minister is quoting employment figures that have nothing to do with the Bill. Will the Minister get to the point?

Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State has been on his feet for two minutes: I imagine that this is his preliminary explanation.

Mr. Fowler: With no particular respect to the hon. Gentlemen, that is the most bogus point that I have heard him make for a long time. He does not want to hear about the welcome trends in the fall in unemployment, and for him to argue that on the Second Reading of the Employment Bill I cannot talk about unemployment takes him into new realms of foolishness.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With due respect, that has nothing to with the Bill, which is about trade unions and the effects on them. The employment issue has nothing to do with the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman is to keep within the rules of the House, he should talk about the Bill and not spread propaganda about the so-called levels of employment that does not affect my area, because unemployment has increased.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Secretary of State will help the House by concentrating on the Bill. Every hon. Member is responsible for his speech and must draw up his remarks in the way that he chooses, but we should concentrate on the Bill.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that part II is concerned with training and employment. His actions reveal that he has not read the Bill. Our challenge is to improve further these trends and to bring unemployment down even lower. The Bill takes up that challenge with a range of measures.
The Bill also tackles the area of industrial relations. The legislation enacted by the Government since 1979 has done much to improve industrial relations. Thanks to that legislation, many more trade union members have had the chance to vote on whether they want to strike, and union members are now more ready to tell their leaders that it is a risk that they do not want to take.
The statistics on days lost due to industrial action again tell their own story. The figures for 1986 show the lowest number of working days lost because of disputes for over 20 years. There were fewer strikes during 1985 and 1986 than at any stage since the war.
No one would suggest that Britain's economic recovery could have been achieved or, once achieved, sustained by trade union law reform alone. Equally, we would have achieved very little without that reform. This country has turned its back decisively on industrial anarchy, which reached its culmination in the winter of discontent in 1978 and early 1979. It was such strike action that not only reduced industrial output in this country but exported British job after British job overseas.
The decline in the number of days lost because of strikes is a key element in Britain's new-found economic strength. The changes that have been made since 1979 have made an undoubted and real contribution to that. The extraordinary legal immunities that have been enjoyed by trade unions have been removed.
The Bill takes the process of industrial relations law reform a stage further. The essence of this step-by-step process of change and reform is a determination to ensure that the framework of law is appropriate to match the needs of the day and to respond to any omissions that have become apparent.
It was in that spirit that the Government published the Green Paper, "Trade Unions and Their Members", last February and put forward a number of issues and suggestions for change as the basis for public consultation. During the election we made it entirely clear, and in detail, on what issues we intended to legislate. No one can claim that we have in any way hidden our intentions. The Bill puts into effect the promises that we made. Many of its provisions simply build upon the examples that some unions have given us of how the rights of members can be secured. The Bill aims to spread that good practice throughout the trade union movement.
The Bill is concerned with the right framework of law for trade union affairs. By that I mean the framework that is necessary, above all, to protect and ensure the right that ordinary trade union members want and need. It puts the interests of the individual trade union member first and foremost. At times, precisely this approach has caused alarm to some trade union leaders in this country.
A fundamental point must be made—trade unions are powerful and unique institutions. They are not, in spite of what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) suggests, like social clubs or sports clubs, which concern themselves with the individual's leisure activities. Trade unions can influence the employment of their

members and affect the viability of the workplace, and thus the entire future of the individual trade union member.
Although there have been substantial improvements in industrial relations over the past few years, there have also been some remarkable abuses. For example, it is absurd that some trade unions should claim the right to be able to transfer their funds through the international banking system to avoid the jurisdiction of the British courts. Yet that is precisely what took place during the miners' strike. The NUM did precisely that. As long as "Artful Dodger" devices of that kind are used, the process of law reform cannot be complete.
The Employment Act 1980 was concerned with adjusting the balance of power between employers and trade unions. The Employment Act 1982 set out new responsibilities for unions and employees. The theme of the Trade Union Act 1984 was to promote democratic practices in trade union affairs. The Bill is essentially concerned with giving new rights to trade union members and setting out new ways in which such rights can be enforced.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Does the Secretary of State agree that the reality of the Government's approach has been, not to balance power, but to shift it from the trade union movement—that is, from labour to capital? In recent years we have seen more and more power acquired by capital rather than by the generality of the trade union movement. I do not instance individual unions, but the union movement in general. It has been weakened by the shift of power from labour to capital. That has been the Government's sole intention with this and other measures.

Mr. Fowler: The purpose of the legislation that we have introduced since 1979 has been to shift power to members of trade unions. It may be that one or two Opposition Members do not agree with that. All the opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of people support what we have done in reforming trade union law.

Mr. Richard Caborn: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall continue my remarks for a moment, if I may.
Trade union members must have protection from abuses of power by their unions and must have the right in respect of their unions that they are entitled to expect in a free society. That provides the first major theme of the Bill.
Clause 1 provides union members with the right not to be called out by their union without a properly held secret ballot which produces a majority in favour of industrial action. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 give the union member the right not to be disciplined by his union because he chooses to go to work rather than to take industrial action.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way at the moment.
Clause 6 gives the union member the right of access to his union's accounting records and the right to have professional advice when inspecting them. Clauses 8 and 9 give trade union members the right to stop their unions' funds being applied for unlawful purposes or the union handing out indemnities to those who are found guilty of criminal offences.

Mr. David Clelland: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall give way in a moment.
Clauses 12, 13 and 14 give the trade union member the right to a postal vote in elections for union governing bodies, and for the elections of general secretaries and presidents, with the assurance that such elections will be subject to proper standards of independent scrutiny. In addition, clauses 7 and 29 give the union member who resigns the right to know that the deduction of union subscription from his wages by his employer will cease as soon as that resignation takes effect.

Mr. Heffer: Has the right hon. Gentleman worked out this matter on the basis of logic? The Government insist that there must be a ballot. A majority of members may decide to take certain action, and a minority may decide not to do so. Will the Secretary of State apply that principle to a regiment of soldiers? A minority may say that they will not go over the top and not participate in a certain battle. What would happen to them? [Interruption.] Exactly. They could be shot. If the right hon. Gentleman applies that principle to a regiment of soldiers, why does he not apply it to a majority of workers who decide to involve themselves in a battle for higher wages?

Mr. Fowler: For the very good reason—I shall refer to the precise point later—that a member of a trade union owes a certain duty, as well as other duties, not only to his union, but to his employer.

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way for the moment. I shall come back to precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman asked me about.
The rights that we are providing will be available to all trade union members. Many trade unionists have some such rights under their contract of membership with their union, and to that extent the Bill merely confirms that, but there are examples of union rule books and union practices that do not guarantee such fundamental rights.
The first clause provides an example of the protection of rights. The clause gives a union member the right not to be called out on strike or to take other industrial action in breach of his contract of employment without a proper secret ballot. Even the Labour party, as I understand its position, recognises the need to come to terms with this demand from union members, though till now it has fudged the question of exactly how it would use the law to guarantee it. At the moment, only employers and their customers and suppliers have the right to stop industrial action which has not been supported in a properly conducted secret ballot. Under the Bill that right is extended to the individual trade union member, and in this respect it provides a natural complement to the 1984 Act.

Mr. Caborn: As the Secretary of State said, some people will support the principle of a strike ballot, but, once a decision is taken to strike, to allow people to go against a democratic decision seems to be alien to all institutions in the United Kingdom. During consultations on the Green Paper, what representations did the Secretary of State receive, particularly from employers, on that important principle? Many employers who would have supported the Government on the principle of the secret ballot are now concerned about the whole industrial relations set-up if we negate the principle of the democratic process.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman if what he has said is that the Opposition are now in favour of clause 1. That is precisely what we have been fighting for over the past eight years. Until now the official Opposition have not distinguished themselves in supporting that principle.

Mr. Stuart Randall: rose—

Mr. Fowler: Let me answer the question.
Clauses 3 to 5, the ones with which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) is concerned, provide that where a union has taken disciplinary action against an individual for refusing to strike, he will have the right of complaint. Once a declaration has been obtained that such discipline is unjustifiable, the union member will be able to apply for compensation. As the hon. Gentleman said, we consulted on that proposal. He is perfectly right. Some employers are opposed to it, and some are in favour of it. Again, the majority of the public are in favour of what is being proposed.

Mr. Randall: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way for the time being.
A number of points are to be put in respect of the proposal. There is the basic legal position that, although, in general unions are protected against the legal consequences of inducing employees to break their contracts of employment, the individual trade union member has no such protection. That gives the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Sheffield, Central one distinction between the positions that they set out.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall continue the argument and then I shall give way to one or other of the hon. Members.
The union member has many obligations. Under his contract of employment he certainly has an obligation to his trade union, but he also just as certainly has an obligation to his employer. Of course, he has a wider obligation to the community and, indeed, to his own family. Such separate duties and obligations can obviously pull an individual in different directions. Our view is that, in coming to a decision, he should not be influenced by the fear of disciplinary action being taken against him by his own trade union. The House should not be in any doubt whatsoever that there have been instances when unions have disciplined members for not striking, and some such instances were set out in the Green Paper.
I give way to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), but I fear that he will have to be the last.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the Secretary of State disclose, first, the number of replies that he has had on clause 3 and from whom they were received? Surely we are entitled to know that, following the issue of the Green Paper. Secondly, he is a member of a Government who were elected on a minority vote. Therefore, if some people disagree with legislation that the Government propose, such as the poll tax legislation or that on education, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that they have a right to dissent? He is dealing here with the central democratic issue of a majority and a majority vote. He pressed for a secret ballot, and we now have that ballot. How on earth can he justify what he is saying?

Mr. Fowler: For a very good reason. I shall ask my hon. Friend to give what figures or analysis we have on this, but the position that I originally described is no secret. The right hon. Gentleman asks what the distinction is. A union member has not only an obligation to his union, but a contract of employment with his employer, which he is being urged to break. There is a whole set of examples in the Green Paper, and I shall give just one.
In the summer of 1982, obviously before the requirement for secret ballots, but nevertheless indicative of the kind of action that can be taken, about a quarter of the NUR's membership declined to obey a strike call by their union. The union disciplined about 12,000 members. The "NUR News" from that period states that the penalties suffered included loss of the right to hold office, loss of the right to participate in certain elections, loss of the right to be represented at disciplinary hearings and a whole range of other things. Whatever else we disagree about, let there be absolutely no doubt that unions have taken, and are prepared to take, action in a discriminatory way against their own members.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Randall: Will the right hon. Member give way?

Mr. Fowler: I shall give way on one last occasion to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), who has been trying to intervene, but if I give way any more I feel that I shall extend the debate far too long.

Mr. Randall: Many reasonable people will find that the Secretary of State's proposal is quite unacceptable. There is a basic principle at stake which many Labour Members and, I am sure, Conservative Members too, believe is fundamentally important, in that if there is a collective vote and the minority decide on a particular matter to undermine it, that is basically undemocratic. I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State's counter-argument. Nevertheless, when the Bill is debated in Committee I believe that many people will assume that the Government are attempting to undermine the trade union movement and to weaken it further; in other words, that this is just an ideological line that the Government are taking.

Mr. Fowler: I shall obviously listen to what is said in the debate. I do not run away from the fact that this will be an issue that will be debated at some length in Committee.
The Bill gives new rights to trade union members, but it goes further than that. Whatever rights are given to trade union members, they are of little practical use to them unless they have the ability where necessary to enforce those rights, and that is a further major theme of the Bill—the removal of obstacles that stand in the way of union members taking complaints to the courts against their unions. The Bill improves the position of individual trade union members in a number of important ways.
Clause 2 will ensure that unions will no longer be able to delay a case from being heard in the courts simply by spinning out their own internal procedures for dealing with members' grievances so that these are still grinding on more than six months after the member started the process of complaint. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 will ensure that unions will not be able to take disciplinary action against a member simply because that member has sought advice

or assistance from the Certification Officer or the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members. Clauses 18, 19 and 20 and schedule 1 set up a Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members, and clause 21 provides that the Certification Officer will be able to refund expenses incurred by people attending hearings at his office.
Of those provisions, the most important is the role and function of the new Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members. The case for action here is clear. Because the whole process of application to the court can be expensive and daunting for the individual, trade union members with complaints about elections are already offered another route for complaint — through the Certification Officer—

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way again. The Certification Officer issues decisions and is given power to make declarations, but he cannot issue enforcement orders. He cannot operate as a court. To obtain such an enforcement order it is necessary for the trade union member to make separate application to the court. Anyone taking that action requires exceptional determination and faces substantial expense.
There is now an additional reason for action. The Bill creates a new duty owed by trade unions to their members not to authorise industrial action without obtaining majority support through a secret ballot. That is the very first clause of the Bill. In a case like that, the individual must take a complaint to the High Court to get an injunction. The Bill proposes that the commissioner's financial help will be available to him. It is in the public interest that the statutory duties in industrial relations legislation are observed, and basically what is being proposed is that a public authority should play a role in securing observance of the law. Trade union members should not be deterred from bringing cases to the courts because of their complexity and the financial costs involved.
My hon. Friend will deal with a number of other issues in part I, but I draw the attention of the House to one other area in part I—the closed shop. The Bill removes all legislative support for the closed shop. It protects the employer against the use of union muscle to force him to dismiss or refuse to employ a non-trade union member. It also protects the employee by providing that dismissal for non-union membership will always be unfair.
Clause 10 removes the present legal immunity applying to industrial action to create or maintain any sort of closed shop or closed shop practice, while clause 11 changes the law so that any dismissal from a job on the grounds of a person's non-union membership will always be unfair dismissal for which the victim can get compensation. Taken together, those clauses bring to an end any legal protection of the closed shop in this country.
At the same time, I also draw the attention of the House to the provisions in clause 29. The object of the clause is to ensure that in appropriate cases it will be possible to take legal action against a Civil Service union that induces its members to take unlawful industrial action. The clause does no more than confirm the legal position thought to apply before a recent judgment of the divisional court and puts Civil Service unions in exactly the same position as any other union with respect to industrial relations law.
Part II deals with another vital theme — the importance of training. We should be clear on the position that we face. We need training to help unemployed people take full advantage of the job opportunities that are now available, but we also need training for those in work to ensure that we remain competitive. In other words, we need training for the employed as well as for the unemployed, and we need training at all ages—training through life. We certainly need training and a skilled work force if we are to hold on to our existing markets overseas and if we are to win new ones.
The background to clause 23 is that the jobcentres have now been transferred to my Department so as to make possible the creation of a comprehensive new employment service that covers both helping unemployed people to find jobs and the payment of benefit. The functions remaining with the commission are primarily now concerned with training. The Bill provides for the Manpower Services Commission to be renamed the Training Commission to signal that new role as the focus of our national training effort.
The restyled commission will obviously have a special responsibility for the training programmes that it runs direct, but its remit will go much wider than that. It must act as a catalyst for training provision by employers as a whole. Training in work is primarily the responsibility of employers. It is employers who create the demand for training and are the customers for it. That is why I also intend to use the powers provided in clause 23 to appoint additional employer members to the new Training Commission. I want to ensure that all the new major sectors of employment, including the new and expanding service sectors, are actively involved in the development of our training arrangements and can play a direct part.
There is one area of our training provision that is already both well established and well able to stand up to international comparison — our provision for young people. Since 1979 we have developed comprehensive training arrangements for 16 and 17-year-olds. Nineteen eighty three saw the launch of YTS, with a guarantee of a place for every 16-year-old school leaver by Christmas. In 1986 YTS became a two-year programme, giving increased opportunities for vocational training. In 1987 we extended our guarantee to unemployed 17-year-old school leavers. Next year we will guarantee every unemployed 16 and 17-year-old a YTS place at any time before their 18th birthday.
The position for 16 and 17-year-olds is that in future they can go into employment, continue in full-time education or have a guaranteed place on a youth training scheme.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: What sort of scheme?

Mr. Fowler: Schemes that are currently providing more and more permanent jobs for those who participate. A total of 75 per cent. of those leaving youth training schemes now go into jobs or on to further training. On average, 60 per cent. take up jobs. Eighty per cent. of YTS trainees who were asked about the scheme when they had completed it said that they were satisfied and were happy with the training that they had been given.

Mr. Grocott: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any of his colleagues have found the schemes so attractive that their own children are currently employed on them?

Mr. Fowler: I do not have the first idea about the answer to that question. Everyone to whom I have spoken during the months that I have been doing this job has spoken highly of YTS and the standards that are now being attained. It is a pity that the Opposition do not put their muscle behind YTS and the increased opportunities for young people in this country.
In the circumstances that I have laid out, the Government see no reason why we should continue to allow a young person who is able to take up a YTS place and who is guaranteed a place to refuse the offer and choose to live on benefit. It is that option that the Social Security Bill, debated by the House yesterday, will be taking away. We recognise that there are some young people who cannot hope to find a job or take up a YTS place. That may be because they are chronically disabled or a single parent. They will continue to be eligible for income support. In addition, child benefit will continue to be paid for three or four months until the school leaver finds a job or YTS place.
Clause 24 ensures that young people under 18 who become unemployed at a later stage are paid a bridging allowance of £15 a week for a maximum of eight weeks in a year until they can be found a suitable YTS place.

Ms. Clare Short: The right hon. Gentleman probably knows, or I hope he does, that under the existing provisions young people who are unemployed but claiming benefit can study for 21 hours a week if they prefer that as a way of obtaining qualifications. Many take up that opportunity and obtain O-levels and A-levels and go on to obtain further qualifications. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is wiping out that option. Is he not concerned about that?

Mr. Fowler: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am ensuring that young people obtain a bridging allowance. However, I will ensure that the hon. Lady's point is answered in the reply to the debate.
The Bill gives effect to specific commitments in the manifesto on which the Government were re-elected five months ago, but it does more than that. It marks an important step forward in guaranteeing the democratic rights of trade union members. What is significant in the steps that we have already taken to reform industrial relations law is that the process of reform has been carried out with the support of the public. That same support is evident again for the Bill.
A MORI opinion poll published by Times Newspapers shows that 70 per cent. of trade union members, and 64 per cent. of those voting Labour, back the strike ballot proposal in clause 1. Only 31 per cent. of trade unionists oppose the proposal to protect non-strikers against union discipline, and an earlier poll showed that this had the support of nearly three out of four members of the general public. In other words, the reform of industrial relations law has the support of the public, including the support of many trade union members.
The Bill also develops further the training strategy of the Government. We now have excellent training for


young people, and increasingly those training opportunities are leading to permanent jobs. Our next priority must be to make further improvements in training and retraining for the long-term unemployed, while at the same time ensuring that the employed work force is trained in the skills that are needed to compete in world markets.
The Bill is an important step towards that goal. It will help create a labour market where excessive union power is held in check, where industry can thrive, and where the talents of working men and women are developed to the full. That is what the Bill is about, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Despite its title, this Bill is not a pro-employment Bill. It is an anti-trade union Bill. It owes its existence to the obsession of the Conservative party to try to resurrect the anti-trade union bandwagon at every election. It is only fair to say to the Secretary of State that, in my view, he did not give one good reason today as to why another Bill is needed for any new and necessary industrial relations purpose. We shall be pressing him hard in Committee. He manifestly failed to answer several of the fundamental questions asked by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Even the employers recognise that with this Bill the Government have really gone over the top. For example, the British Institute of Management describes it as
undemocratic and possibly obstructive to good industrial relations.
Indeed, contrary to all the Government's claims about democratising the unions, the Bill is profoundly antidemocratic. For the first time in the history of English statute the Bill proposes, as several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, to enshrine in law the principle that minorities shall be legally protected if they disobey a majority decision democratically reached after a secret ballot. There is no other country in the world that has seen fit to legislate for such a principle. There is no other organisation in this country, statutory or voluntary, that is legally prohibited from enforcing its own rules. Such is the bottomless pit of the Government's unique hostility to trade unions.
Clause 1 is thoroughly objectionable on several counts. It destroys the deep-seated respect for majority decisions that is held universally throughout the country. It devalues the ballot. What is the point of having a ballot if those who disagree with it can then safely set it aside? It will actually encourage workers to take industrial action without bothering with ballots so that they can be seen not to decide anything. If the clause discredits a ballot to strike, it must, by the same token, discredit a ballot to return to work. Therefore, it may well result in protracted strikes even after negotiated settlements have been reached.
It is the Government's hypocrisy, above all, that stands out so sharply in all this. They are happy, indeed anxious, for union members to take their unions to court to uphold the rule book. However, as soon as the union seeks to apply the contents of that same rule book, the Goverment will not have it. It is the David Owen principle of industrial relations: one plays the game until it comes up with results that one does not like and then one walks off with the ball. That principle will be no more conducive to harmony in industrial relations than it has been to harmony in the SDP.
There is not a golf club in the country—let alone organisations responsibly representing millions of workers—that operates on the principle of requiring a secret ballot and then encouraging people not to abide by the outcome. Even the Government's staunchest supporters—the CBI, the British Institute of Management, the Institute of Personnel Management, the Conservative trade unionists, the Engineering Employers Federation and even the Freedom Association—cannot stomach that principle. I hope that there will be enough fair-minded Conservative hon. Members—perhaps even right hon. Members—with the decency and honesty to recognise that this clause represents a standing repudiation of democracy so that we can defeat it in the House.
It is all the more important that the Bill should be defeated, because the Government now propose to give wrecking minorities even greater powers. Clause 16, to which the Secretary of State gave little attention, rules that a ballot for industrial action must command not only a national majority but a majority at each workplace. The Government have no mandate for that proposal. There was no mention of it in the Green Paper last February or in the Tory election manifesto. There is no justification for it because it flies in the face of democratic theory and practice. There is no precedent for it as no other organisation in this country, voluntary or statutory, is hobbled by such unreasonable impediments.
It is as if it had been decided at the last election that constituencies that produced a winner who was not Tory could opt out of the decisions made by the Tory Government returned with an overall majority of seats throughout the country. I wonder what the Prime Minister would feel about that. The Bill goes even further than that in its obsession with the blocking tactics of minorities. It is as though it had also been decided at the last general election that, even in constituencies where the Tory won, the minority who voted for another candidate were not to be bound by the majority decision. Then, to cap it all, when the Tory majority in any constituency tried to discipline the minority to comply with the majority verdict they were to be told that they were legally prohibited from taking any such action to bring the minority into line. Do the Government really think that such a system is fair arid reasonable? Of course they do not. They would be the first to be outraged by it. It is monstrous that they can force trade unions to abide by procedural distortions which, if they were applied to them, they would bawl out of court as arrant nonsense that stood democracy on its head.
The truth is that no Cabinet, board of governors, company board room or voluntary society can operate on such principles. Why, therefore, are the unions to be singled out for these perverse and anti-democratic rules? The Bill has been dubbed by many a scab's charter. It is more accurately described as an anarchists' charter.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Although I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman in that I think that the measure may be undemocratic, he should not tell the House that the proposal was not in the February Green Paper. The suggestion that Members should have the right to retain membership of a union and yet not to strike appears on page 7 of the Green Paper.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman seems to be confused. He is referring to the proposals in clauses 3 and 5, which are, indeed, referred to in the Green Paper. I


referred to clause 16, and I assure him that there is no mention of that proposal in the Green Paper. I am glad to see the Secretary of State nodding assent. I repeat that there is no mandate for this denial of democracy in the Green Paper or in the Tory election manifesto.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we cannot draw an analogy between trade unions and democracy? In fact, Scottish Labour Members have been demanding what the hon. Gentleman says we have been demanding from the trade unions. They have told us that we do not have the right to rule in Scotland because they have a majority there. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in trade union affairs, where a trade union may instruct a man to break the law—to break his contract of employment—that man must have the right to decide for himself whether he wishes to follow that instruction?

Mr. Meacher: The trouble with the Government is that they want to have their cake and eat it. They want to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected under so-called employment legislation, which is actually anti-trade uinion legislation, but they will have no truck with the rights of minorities in the House. For them, there is no question of the large majority of Labour Members in Scotland being allowed to opt out. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention precisely to the hypocrisy at the root of the Government's policy.
The denial of democratic choice is apparent in another of the Bill's main provisions. Union membership agreements or closed shops, as they are normally described, are already covered by secret ballot established under this Government's previous legislation and requiring an electoral threshold of approval far in excess of what the Prime Minister regards as sufficient for her tenure of office. Such ballots require the support of 85 per cent. of those voting, which is more than twice the 42 per cent. voting support which the Prime Minister received and which she regards as adequate. The Government now propose to abolish their own balloting provisions, established only three years ago, simply because those engaging in such ballots had the nerve to commit the unforgiveable sin of voting overwhelmingly in favour of continuing with the closed shop.
The Government have disregarded the employers' wishes. The British Institute of Management memorandum says:
it is believed that the closed shop can provide a stable focus for negotiations where it takes into account the natural groupings that occur in an industrial environment. If the majority of employees vote for it and continue to do at regular intervals, the closed shop should be allowed to exist.
Those are the words not of the Labour Party but of the British Institute of Management. Disregarding the views of employers and those at the sharp end of industry, the Government decided that if members did not come up with the right choice in the ballot that they had given them, they would take away that ballot. That is the moral of it.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has made much of the fact that the proposals in clause 16 did not appear in the Green Paper. However, he will concede that the proposal concerning the approved closed shop was in the Green

Paper and, indeed, in the election manifesto. In fact very few people indeed have taken advantage of the approved closed shop arrangements.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State makes my point for me. Of course it was in the consultative Green Paper. The purpose of the Green Paper was to consult opinion in industry, but when the employers said that the closed shop should be continued, the Secretary of State ignored the evidence. What is the point of having a Green Paper? That is always the problem with this Government. They completely ignore even what their supporters say about industrial matters.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is taking his argument to absurd lengths. He must recognise that the proposal was set out in the election manifesto and that the Government were re-elected, with an overwhelming majority, on that manifesto.

Mr. Meacher: It is far more relevant that, with regard to the consultation exercise on the closed shop, not only the TUC but most, if not all, of the employer organisations—the Secretary of State should have published the results of the exercise—recognised that the closed shop has a valid role to play and do not want it to be abolished.
The Bill is not only anti-democratic. The second fundamental objection to it is that it thoroughly discriminates against trade unions. Contrary to the central principle of English statute, that similar persons or bodies should be treated in a similar manner, the Bill singles out trade unions from all the major institutions for unprecedented and prejudicial state regulation of their internal affairs. The unions will be subjected to rules which the Tory party would never accept for itself. The Bill outlaws the closed shop, but does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the main author of the Bill, accept that for himself? He is a member of the Bar, which is perhaps the foremost example of the closed shop.
The Bill insists that unions are answerable to their electorate. Does the previous Secretary of State for Employment, who was responsible for the Bill, accept that for himself? He owes his position entirely to patronage and is not answerable in another place to any electorate. The Bill requires that the unions' principal executive committees should be subject to election. Does the Cabinet, which is the Government's principal executive committee, accept that for itself when not one of its members is directly elected? The Bill insists on secret ballots for union presidents and general secretaries. Did the former Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who was responsible for initiating secret ballots for unions, accept that for himself when he was the non-elected chairman of the Tory party?
The Tory party—I noted what the Secretary of State said today—likes to say that trade unions are different. The Green Paper refers to
the considerable importance to individuals of their position in the labour market.
I agree, but how do they explain why private employers, whose importance to individuals in the labour market is without question, are free from even the most basic electoral accountability to their staff or customers? How does the Secretary of State explain that shareholders normally choose their directors and make other key decisions by show of hands at their annual general meetings, which is precisely what the Bill would outlaw?

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative Charter Movement, led by Mr. Eric Chalker, has complained bitterly that the position of chairman of the Conservative party is not subject to election and is appointed by one person? Is it not the height of hypocrisy for the Conservative party to lecture trade unions on how they should conduct their internal business when the Conservative party is one of the least democratic organisations in the country?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I look forward to the Minister's response—if he can give one.

Mr. Edward Leigh: After raising some delightful red herrings, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Labour party is in favour of secret postal ballots for the election of trade union leaders?

Mr. Meacher: ; I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads "New Rights, New Responsibilities", which is our precise statement on that point. We are in favour of secret ballots before industrial action.

Mr. Leigh: Secret postal ballots?

Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman listened to my speech, he might be persuaded that, although the Government are obsessed with postal ballots, they are probably less democratic and rather unwise.
The same meticulous over-restrictiveness towards trade unions, combined with blind disregard of similar faults on a far bigger scale in other bodies, is present everywhere in the Bill. Although there is no evidence of trade unions refusing to comply with previous trade union Acts, the Bill set up a so-called Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members, who will no doubt spearhead a public campaign, aided and abetted by the Freedom Association, to provoke complaints against trade unions. But the Government make no move to set up a commissioner for the rights of small shareholders in the City which, after the recent spate of financial scandals, might be needed more. The Bill legislates to give a right of access to trade union accounts, although that has never been denied, yet the Government do nothing to secure for employees the right to see their company's accounts, which is far more important. The Government have even vetoed the proposed EC legislation which would have given employees minimal rights in that respect. The Bill provides for independent supervision of union ballots, yet the Government turn a blind eye to the far greater and more serious corruption and misbehaviour in the City.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Rubbish.

Mr. Meacher: The Government should recognise, if they have not already, that Tory Members are far more likely to make multiple share applications than trade unions are to exercise multiple votes.

Mr. Sayeed: Cheap.

Mr. Meacher: It may be cheap, but it is true.
The Bill goes out of its way to assure union members that they will not be deprived of access to the courts if there has been a breach of statutory rights or the common law, although there is no evidence that they have been denied access. But the Government deliberately ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens are

denied access to the courts to get their basic legal rights because of Government restrictions on legal aid and the cuts in law centres.
The Bill not only discriminates against trade unions but contains instance after instance of the Government stepping up hostile action against unions and individuals in direct defiance of their previously stated clear decision. The 1983 Green Paper stated:
The wide variety and differing circumstances of trade union electoral arrangements suggest that it would be unrealistic to attempt to achieve the desired standards by requiring through legislation a single method for all types and levels of union elections.
But without advancing a shred of evidence since that date, that is exactly what the Government are demanding in the Bill.
In 1985, the former Secretary of State for Employment—now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—firmly rejected postal ballots. I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle will listen to this. On 23 April 1985 he said:
I understand from the research … that, in a fully postal ballot conducted by the AUEW, which has confirmed these findings, 200,000 members never received a vote and 20,000 received a vote to which they were not entitled."—[Official Report, 23 April 1985; Vol. 77, c. 775.]
However, in this Bill the Government are enforcing compulsory postal ballots.
On YTS, the Tory election manifesto made it clear that the Government would remove benefit from
those under 18 who deliberately choose to remain unemployed".
However, the Government are now being much harsher and are putting forward a proposal to remove benefit from all young people under 18, irrespective of the circumstances and even if they have done what is expected of them and got a job but then had the misfortune to be laid off.
The Secretary of State for Social Services has made a strong speech denouncing dependency. However, under the Bill the waiting allowance will reduce income and make school leavers more dependent on their parents. The Secretary of State for Education keeps coming to the House to preen himself about choice in schools. However, the Secretary of State for Employment is abolishing choice in the post-school YTS, and so on and so on.
Indeed, part II of the Bill, on training schemes and the Manpower Services Commission, which is really a separate Bill in itself, displays exactly the same characteristics of an over-domineering Government further restricting rights, centralising power to itself and again going back on its own previous commitments. I remind the Secretary of State that it was a Conservative Government of more generous aspirations who, in 1973, separated benefit payments from jobcentres to enhance the image of job creation. Today a Conservative Government of much meaner intent are bringing them together again because they are far more concerned to restrict benefit entitlement to reduce artificially the unemployment figures than they are to create new jobs.
None of the changes that are being made to the MSC was sought or approved by it, or even desired by the employers. They will transform the commission from an independent body into the Government's pliant poodle, centralise power in the hands of the Secretary of State for Employment and open up the Government's ultimate objective—the privatisation of training.
Clause 25 is a real Trojan horse. It paves the way for the Secretary of State to define community programme workers as "non-employed". They will therefore receive "benefit-plus" payments, as they are called, instead of the current hourly rate for the job. It is yet another major wage-cutting exercise as well as, no doubt, being designed to mop up the JTS which has proved such a monumental flop.
Nor are the YTS changes, which are tantamount to job conscription, any more acceptable to the employers than they are to the unions. Perhaps scheme quality will suffer because of the influx of unwilling trainees, or those trainees will be forced into the more charitable but overstretched voluntary sector schemes, or they will lose all income support. The Government are directly defying strongly held MSC views that the voluntary nature of YTS is central to its purpose.
The Government defend the Bill as extending individual rights and giving protection to union members. In fact, almost everything in the Bill does precisely the opposite. If the Government were genuinely concerned about extending rights, why cannot the new commissioner, unlike the equal opportunities commissioner or the race relations commissioner, with whom the Government compare him, take action where necessary on behalf of the employee against either the union or the employer? Why is the new rights commissioner limited to grievances about a union, for the existence of which the Government have not provided any evidence, when the employers are engaged in a far more serious undermining of employees' rights through defective health and safety arrangements and widespread illegal underpayments of wages?
If the Government were genuinely concerned about individual rights, why do they not provide fair and proper protection against unfair dismissal, which must now be feebler in this country than in many Third world countries? Why do they not provide a right to reinstatement when an industrial tribunal so orders? Why do they not provide the right for women to receive equal pay for work of equal value, or maternity rights so that they can return to their jobs after having a baby? Why do they not provide protection against victimisation by an employer when an employee complains of a breach of statutory employer duties? [Interruption.] Perhaps I could have the Secretary of State's attention. Above all, if the Government are serious about rights, why do they not provide a right not to be dismissed when involved in industrial action after a majority ballot—a right that exists everywhere in the West except in Thatcherite Britain?
Because the Government are not genuinely concerned about employment rights, because their excuses for the Bill are opportunistic humbug, and because the Bill will greatly worsen industrial relations, we shall unreservedly vote against it tonight.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I am delighted to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I shall make a short speech and deal only with the conduct of elections for trade union officers. Rebelling against one's own Government and being proved right is not the way to win friends and influence the hon. and right hon. Members on

the Treasury Bench. However, some hon. Members may remember that during the passage of the Trade Union Act 1984, 35 Conservative Members rebelled against the Government because they wanted to insist on the provision of secret postal ballots. I was assured by the then Secretary of State for Employment that he hoped that secret postal ballots would become the norm as a result of that Act. I predicted then:
when ballots are held in 1986 under the provisions of the Bill, postal ballots will simply be found not to have become the norm. What do the Government mean by the norm? Do they mean 50 per cent.? That is an optimistic figure by any account. They will not achieve 50 per cent. Do they mean a mere handful? Of course it will be a mere handful, possibly what we have at present;"—[Official Report, 24 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 855.]
I am sorry to say that recent research, conducted by a barrister, Mark Loveday, for Policy Research Associates, which was a survey of the 22 largest trade unions, shows that, as I predicted, only a handful of trade unions had adopted secret postal ballots although the Secretary of State thought that that might become the norm. Indeed, only four major trade unions have adopted them. Of them, the Royal College of Nursing already had secret postal ballots, and the Union of Construction and Allied Trades Technicians adopted them only because workplace ballots were unsuitable because they did not have the sites.
Clearly, there is a necessity for the Bill and I warmly welcome it. I pay due tribute to the Secretary of State for moving the Second Reading today. To give some credit to the Government, secret ballots are much more practical in 1987 than they were in 1984 because the 1984 Act required trade unions to compile a central register.

Mr. Graham Allen: I take it that the hon. Gentleman wishes to increase participation in trade union matters. Is he aware that where there are full postal ballots rather than workplace ballots fewer people become involved? Might that not be one reason why most trade unions have not adopted them?

Mr. Leigh: Surely democracy is more important than anything else. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the investigation into the Transport and General Workers Union ballot and to an article in The Observer of 14 April 1985 which stated:
One shop steward, for example, said that he had not voted, nor had his members. When he raised the matter following press allegations, he was told by a friendly union official that the ballot forms for his members and members in other companies had not left union headquarters but had been filled in on their behalf in the union's offices. We were also told of one official who was complaining of 'writer's cramp' from filling in the ballot forms.
Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants? We want democracy and believe that it has a vital part to play in our national affairs.
I turn now to two small points that concern me. Firstly, I am concerned that when a member receives a ballot form in the privacy of his own home, he should have some idea about the position of the candidates for whom he is being asked to vote. Therefore, I hope that, in Committee, this Bill might be amended to make it a requirement that candidates should have the right to provide a short manifesto to union members. We cannot have a situation in which the militant is allowed to achieve, by stealth, in the privacy of the member's home, what he was unable to achieve by intimidation in the union branch or the workplace.
My second point concerns clause 14(2), which states:


The trade union in question—must, before the ballot is taken or the election held, appoint a qualified independent person ("the scrutineer")
We must ensure that the scrutineer is truly independent. I believe that the Bill should be amended in Committee to require that the scrutineer has no connection with the trade union movement. I illustrate my case by referring to the Unity bank, which is the trade union movement's bank. It provides a number of worthwhile services for the trade union movement. In the promotional literature for all those services it stresses its close links with the trade union movement. However, it has also set up a new service called Independent Balloting Services.
It is interesting that, in the promotional literature for Independent Balloting Services, the Unity bank makes it quite clear that that organisation is totally independent of the trade union movement. However, I suspect that this so-called independent service has been set up to circumvent the intentions of this Bill.

Miss Marjorie Mowlam: rose—

Mr. Leigh: No, I shall not give way, but I shall sit down in a moment.
When this Bill becomes an Act we must ensure that we have a truly independent scrutineer.
I believe that the trade union militant fears democracy, fairness and secrecy of ballots as Dracular fears the approaching dawn. I believe that this Bill will ensure that we finally rid our industry and trade union movement of the militant scourge that has plagued us for so many years.

Mr. Michael Foot: When I first read this Bill I thought that it was a shabby and shameful proposal for any Minister to bring before the House. When I listened to the Minister speaking about the Bill I thought that it was also explosively dangerous. I believe that unless we can alter it substantially as it goes through the House it will lead to great difficulties in industrial relations. I believe it is a great tragedy that the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Department of Employment, should have dared to introduce this measure to the House.
Perhaps I can assist the Minister and everyone else, by explaining how it is that we have the extraordinary proposal—the main topic of discussion so far— that a member who has voted in the minority should have the right to upset the majority decision. The Government believe that proposition should be accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has already said that this proposition is opposed by a whole range of bodies, including what I had always previously thought to be a laughable organisation, the Conservative Trade Unionists' National Committee. Even that committee is opposed to this proposition. However, I can explain how clause 3 came to be put forward.
I have the highest respect for the lawyers at the Department of Employment. Indeed, over many years, I have been assisted by them. I am sure they know what they are up to and for that reason I call clause 3 the "wager clause". I believe there was a wager between the lawyers who were advising the Secretary of State. I believe that one of them said to the other, "I bet you cannot introduce or frame a clause of such anti-trade union dedication that it would be opposed by the Conservative Trade Unionists' National Committee." That was the wager and it was

accompanied by another wager that they could get such a clause past the new Minister. Perhaps they thought that that wager was a good deal easier.
Such is my explanation for clause 3. I hope that that clause will be known as the wager clause throughout the discussions on the Bill. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State seriously brought that clause forward—he made few defences of it today. I hope that he will withdraw that. clause from the Bill—it will still be a bad Bill for other reasons—because that would be the best way forward If the Government persist in trying to put that clause on the statute book they will make a laughing stock of the Bill, a laughing stock of themselves and a laughing stock of a great deal of the rest of their industrial relations measures. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take my early advice. It could all be fixed in Committee. We could have an early vote, a few of the Ministers could be taken off to the races and we could defeat the clause. That is the best advice I can give to the right hon. Gentleman and I am sure that he will consider it carefully. Indeed, I am sure that his advisers will, even if he does not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West dealt admirably with the proposal for a commissioner. I am not. sure of the size of the staff for that commission. This is the Government who have been curtailing all the services that are provided for carrying out health and safety regulations, regulations that might assist the labour market and regulations that provide for the protection of decent conditions for people in work. The Government have refused to provide resources for such work, indeed they have curtailed such services, and I should like to know how much the commissioner will be paid and how big a staff he will be able to employ. Perhaps some of the people serving him will be transferred from the health and safety inspectorate or some other organisations as the right hon. Gentleman, in common with his predecessors, tries to injure the way in which some previous excellent legislation., passed by the Department of Employment, is put into effect.
I have another simple solution to the problem of the commissioner. It is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West has already said, that this commission is quite different from any other that operates. We could have a simple amendment in the Bill that would say that the post of commissioner should always be occupied by the current chairman of Conservative Central Office, unless of course, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was again asked to undertake that responsibility. Indeed. as long as the right hon. Member for Chingford is around I suppose he might take on that post. It would keep him out of other kinds of mischief.
One way or another, this clause was obviously devised to assist the Conservative party. I do not see why it should not be plainly stated—it certainly would not make any difference to the operation of the Bill—that, with the establishment of this kind of commissioner, the Government's intention is to give every kind of support to every kind of dissident in a union who is opposing the general policy of his union—strike action or any other action.
If the Secretary of State persists with this proposal it will make the whole Bill ridiculous. It is a further illustration of the shocking nature of part I of the Bill. Indeed, part I of the Bill certainly cannot be called an Employment Bill. It would be better called the Vendetta Against Trade Unions Bill or the Miscellaneous Vindictive


Provisions Bill. I believe that the House of Commons will have the sense, over time, to alter and transform this Bill if possible or, better still, kill it.
The Secretary of State tries to pretend that the second part of the Bill has some honourable pretensions. Certainly, it is not as bad as the first part of the Bill, but nothing could be. However, I do not believe that the origins of the second part of the Bill are quite as the right hon. Gentleman describes.
I believe that, over many years, the Department of Employment has had many fruitful ideas regarding carrying through measures for training and for assisting the employment market. Indeed, I believe that, on the whole, those ideas have been better than the ideas of many other countries and I believe that they should have been encouraged. However, I do not believe that there has been much encouragement from Lord Young. Previously he was at the Manpower Services Commission. Then he went on to the Department of Employment and his fingerprints are on this measure. He has taken part of the operation away to the new Ministry which he is occupying and he has left behind part of it for the resident Minister to operate.
It is a strange transformation because away back in 1974 when the Manpower Services Commission was established the move was in the opposite direction; that is to say, a new body was to be established at one remove from the Department of Employment. Whether that was right, I do not know. At any rate, when we came into office in 1974 we said that it would be ludicrous to tear all that up; we felt that it was better to let it continue. We did not try to alter the organisation and control of the commission. We did not try to push in trade unionists or push out the others. We did not try to use the subversive method that the right hon. Gentleman is using.
The Minister pretends that he is not altering the balance of control over this body even though he wants greatly to reduce the proportion of trade union representation. He knows well that after he has carried through this reform the impartiality of the body will be greatly impaired. It has been difficult enough for trade unionists to co-operate with many of the measures imposed upon the Manpower Services Commission by the Government. If effective control over that body is to be watered down in such a way that the power of the Minister becomes much greater and the power of the trade union representatives much weaker, the body will be weakened altogether.
All that was not taken into account when Lord Young's proposals were carried through. Lord Young has had a malign influence on the whole of these operations for many years. He has not applied his mind properly to the problems. Wherever he has been, whether at the Manpower Services Commission or the Department of Employment, he has always been looking over his shoulder at the master, or rather the mistress, behind him to see what she is demanding that he should do. Therefore, what should have been an objective operation of the Department of Employment to deal with the unemployment crisis facing the nation has been distorted by the way in which Lord Young has done his job. He is continuing these malignant and malign influences.
Lord Young has never had to face the person who may be subjected to the tyrannies which he has imposed. Extra inquisitions will be imposed by the second part of the Bill. I get the impression—I do not think it is false—that

Lord Young would much rather find one alleged scrounger than provide 10 real jobs. He would much rather use the power of the state and all its mechanisms to find ways to remove a young boy or a young girl from some register so that he could go along to the Prime Minister a week later and say that he had got another 100,000 off the unemployed list. That is the way he has applied his mind.
If Lord Young had had any imagination he would have applied his mind to the real problems of the huge increase in short-time work. We are all in favour of short-time jobs as well as long-term work but we do not want the long-term figures mangled by the creation of part-time jobs. The majority of people in part-time employment are women and they have as much right to decent conditions and to protection as any other citizen. If the Government continue with the policy of removing protection from the growing numbers of people in part-time employment, they will create much greater and more explosive problems.
From what the Secretary of State has said, it seems that these matters are being dealt with in a prosperous way. But in my constituency, where there has been chronic unemployment of 17 per cent., 18 per cent. and 20 per cent. since 1979, there is very little sign of any diminution. There has been some reduction but it has been very small. We have still got far more young people without a real prospect of a job than we had seven or eight years ago. As the problem piles up year by year it becomes very serious. At the end of it the Government say, "We will not provide anything fresh for you. What we will provide is a fresh mechanism by which we will get at you." Some people will be frightened of going to unemployment offices. We set up jobcentres where people could go and consult properly. We made the system much more civilised. One of the best things that happened over the past 10 years was getting jobcentres into the best places, in main streets, away from the back streets and away from indignities. We gave people encouragement to come in and the knowledge that they would get the best possible aid. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is interfering with if he proceeds with some of these proposals.
The right hon. Gentleman also wants to alter the training system. There have been some improvements in training, but many more young people were being trained properly 10 years ago than there are today. They had decent apprenticeships in different industries. The Government smashed all that to pieces in their first two or three years in office. They took away regional grants. They made the problem infinitely greater in areas which have had to face persistent unemployment. Now they come along not with a remedy but with a measure which will be regarded up and down the country as a piece of vindictiveness, hitting the trade union movement when it is down.
I can remember longer than many hon. Members. I was not a Member then but I know what happened after the 1926 strike when a Conservative Government thought that they had got the trade union movement down. They said, "Now that they are down we will kick them because we want to kick any life or spirit out of them. Now we have got them down, let us screw them down and keep them down." So legislation was introduced which became the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927. It took away a great range of trade union powers. The Government thought that they had got the trade union movement down for ever, but they had not, because the Labour movement


pledged that one of its first acts when it got a full majority in the House would be to sweep those vindictive measures off the statute book.
I hope I do not strike too much terror into the Government Benches when I recall the militant, revolutionary figure who came to that Dispatch Box to propose the abolition of the 1927 Act. It was Sir Hartley Shawcross who introduced that as one of the first measures proposed by the 1945 Labour Government. He was the revolutionary figure, the well-breeched leader of the "sans culottes". It was he, with all his legal knowledge at his disposal—I think he is still alive and kicking but not quite in the same cause that he was then—who introduced the measure. The House was proud to wipe out such a bitter piece of class legislation. That is what it was in 1927 and that is what this is today.
H. G. Wells said that the class war was an old practice of the English ruling classes. Every now and then they have spasms when they forget, such as in the days of Macmillan and his sort, when the "wets" were in charge. But they return to their roots—to the old game of saying, "Once we have the power, we will use it to take away rights that people in this country have had for 20 or 30 years."
We are going to get those rights back. One day—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be here to see it—there will be a Labour Minister at the Government Dispatch Box, who will wipe away these measures. They are hitter, vindictive and utterly opposed to all the decencies that we accept in British public life.

Mr. James Paice: In rising to address the House for the first time I am mindful of the honour and privilege of being a Member of it. The trepidation with which I make my first speech is tempered only by the knowledge that even the greatest statesmen who have served the country have had at some stage in their careers to rise and address the House for the first time.
Indeed, I follow in the footsteps of a great statesman: Francis Pym represented the old constituency of Cambridgeshire and, more recently, Cambridgeshire, South-East, for some 26 years. During that time he occupied many of the highest offices in the land, and for all that time he served both his constituency and country to the very best of his ability. He did so in a way which is an example to us all, and which I shall find it very difficult to emulate over the years in which I hope to represent my constituency. It is only right and proper that Francis Pym has now taken his place in the Upper House, where his counsel can still be heard.
The constituency that I am proud to represent includes many of the features that are at the forefront of Britain's revival. In it have taken place, and are taking place, many of the technological developments and the advances in research that are at the forefront of our economic recovery. The enterprise culture has blossomed and boomed there perhaps more than in any other part of the country. The very atmosphere seems to breathe and encourage success. However, it is a very large constituency and, geographically, a very rural one—stretching from the Essex-Suffolk border to around Newmarket and taking in the vast majority of that great centre of the British bloodstock industry, and extending upwards into

the Fens and the city of Ely, including the magnificant cathedral that makes it the centre of tourism in that part of Britain.
However, the area has its problems. Fortunately. they are the problems of success. The pressures of development. if not handled properly, threaten to destroy the very fabric of our community. There is a further problem: the businesses that are currently booming, expanding constantly and providing massive numbers of extra jobs face an even greater threat to their continued development. The great perversity of our current economic scene is the shortage of skilled staff. That is why I am addressing myself to the Bill, and particularly to part II, which deals with training. I am sorry that much of the vehemence of the Opposition is concentrated on part I. I can only assume that they support most of the section on training, which, in my view, is of much longer-term importance to the country. I welcome the clauses on training and the greater emphasis placed on it by my right hon Friend in appointing a Training Commission.
Before I was elected, I was general manager of a company specialising in training and management development. My duties included running a substantial youth training scheme and many other MSC schemes. I also served for a time as a member of an area manpower board, and I have seen many of the MSC schemes from different perspectives. In my view, the youth training scheme that my right hon. Friend has already developed is one of the Government's greatest achievements over the years since they were elected in 1979. However, I have a few caveats.
First, and probably most important, if, as we all hope, the number of young people in strict unemployment is coming down, partly because of the improving employment picture and partly because there are slightly fewer school leavers, the challenge to us all to ensure that the youth training scheme continues to develop is even greater as the necessity for it appears to diminish. The YTS is not concerned merely with keeping people out of the dole queue, which is the accusation thrown at it by those who wish it ill. More important, it is a means of ensuring that all young people who leave school at the age of 16—or, now, at 17—whatever their level of academic ability or achievement, can go into work and gain the skills that are necessary for work. That does not mean only the manual and practical skills, essential though they are. It also means the skills of working discipline—personal skills, which are equally important to holding down a job and doing it well. All those skills are vital if young people are not only to obtain jobs in the future, but to play a full and lasting role in Britain's economy.
Many firms and businesses with which I have been associated understand that and use YTS as the normal route of entry for 16-year-olds, not simply as a means of paying only £28·50 a week. It is, of course, open to an employer to pay any figure above that minimum, and, in my experience, many do so. The framework of YTS provides an opportunity of training in a combined programme lasting for up to two years, to ensure that when young people reach the age of 18 they have learnt many of the basic skills that will stand them in good stead for the rest of their working career. That is a good basis on which to build, and I hope that in the next few years the Training Commission will take steps to develop it into a three-year scheme. It would then compare favourably with the apprenticeship schemes that it is now replacing in


many industries. It is a pity that only about 10 per cent. of trainees have formal employee status, as opposed to trainee status, and I hope that the commission will set an increase in that figure as one of its chief targets over the next few years.
My second caveat is that we must ensure that industry takes up its own responsibilities for training. One of the sadnesses that I faced in my career, until my election, was the low level of importance attached by some industries to training. They pay considerable lip service to it, but when it is time to come up with the goods they are found wanting. That is their loss and the loss of the country and the economy.
It is no use threatening to institute massive levies on every business so that the Government, through some different arm, can redistribute and dispense those levies as they see fit. Contrary to what we have hard, and no doubt will hear again, it just does not work. Seen from the grass roots, it is not a good use of resources. What we have to do is to encourage, persuade and cajole industry to recognise its own responsibilities for the development of its staff — to recognise that it must make a major investment, which is worth every penny. The most important investment that a company can make is in training its staff for the future.
As the number of people on the youth training scheme declines, the Government and the Training Commission will be tempted to begin to reduce the financial input. I know that it is the Government's policy to move the burden of training more to the employers. That is right, and is as it should be, but we must be careful to ensure that we do not go too fast too soon. We must make sure that the slack is gradually taken up by industry so that the developments that have been at the forefront of the advances in the youth training scheme in the last few years are not lost.
Even with inflation down to its present highly satisfactory level, the costs of training, especially in rural areas, where YTS trainees can be spread over many square miles, are considerable. Like everything else, the costs keep rising and I hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise the great cost and only gradually shift the burden to the employers. The burden should be shifted, but we must not do it too quickly, because if we do something will be lost in the middle.
My final caveat is that the development of YTS in the last few years has spawned a number of private training operators. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who has left the Chamber, and noted the cynical way in which he spoke about privatised training. One of the major factors in the success of the scheme has been the development of private training operators, often in competition with established colleges of further education. Many colleges succumbed to the temptation of simply tacking the YTS on to their existing courses of study. Over and over again that failed miserably, because the very ethos of YTS and its concepts of integrating work and training into a combined package and of appraisal and assessment were new and could not simply be tacked on to existing programmes.
Fortunately, professional trainers were there, as opposed to professional educators. They were able to take up the opportunities offered and in many cases they forced colleges of further education to recognise the great

differences. The colleges now understand that if they are to run the youth training scheme and provide the level of service that young people deserve and require, a rethink is necessary. The results of that rethink are now beginning to show in the efforts of many of those traditional providers.
In the proper shifting of the burden that is bound to come, I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that private providers are not put at risk. We have already heard expressed the great antipathy of the area manpower boards, the trade unions and the established institutional providers against the private sector. It would be a great shame if private sector competition were lost. The private sector has taken great steps towards moving the whole ethos and understanding of the skills of training forward into the future. It is not good enough for the Opposition to say that we should hark back to 1974 when the Manpower Services Commission was first developed. Today, everything to do with training is totally different, because training is a different ball game. The skill training profession has moved a whole street ahead of where it was in 1974. We must recognise that. There is no point in looking back, because in those days training did not do half the job that it professed to do.
I welcome the clauses in the Bill to ensure that every young person will have the opportunity to train and to make a responsible choice. They will be able to go into the planned programme of training and work provided by the Government, or choose to be unemployed. The social security changes that were given their Second Reading yesterday are welcome. It is estimated that about 6 per cent. of young people refuse YTS and that about 7 per cent. pull out of the scheme because they believe that it is doing them no good. That is about 40,000 people a year, and we must try to reduce that figure. If the young people who dither and wander, or who become sceptical or disenchanted with YTS, are to be persuaded that the scheme has something to offer, we must make sure that the developments that have taken place in the last four or five years continue at the same pace.
The opportunities are there and the importance of the YTS has not diminished even though, perhaps, its original purpose begins to fade. We must ensure that industry takes up the challenge of using YTS as the normal route for training and accepts the responsibility for gradually paying a greater share of the costs. We must ensure that young people will accept the concept of YTS as being in their best interests. We are already moving fast down those roads. If we can do those things we will have taken the first step towards ensuring that the successful, booming industries and businesses in constituencies such as mine are not continually faced with the problem of a shortage of skilled staff. Sadly, such shortages are even now beginning to hamper development. That is not in Britain's interests, and I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that the skills are available for the future.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), and to compliment him on his maiden speech. Interestingly, it is 15 years today since I made my maiden speech. During those 15 years I have taken part in may employment debates. The hon. Gentleman clearly brings to the House a wealth of experience that will be useful. He is certainly worth listening to when he speaks about


training. I detected from his speech a certain rebelliousness that may manifest itself as the years go on. I warn him to look at what happened to his predecessor in his constituency. He had the courage to rebel and had his head chopped off for doing so.
Perhaps it is not inappropriate to mention in this debate that it has always amused and interested me to note that the Conservative Government have constantly said that they will take a step at a time in industrial relations. It intrigues me to know that the man who advocated the policy, planned it and carried it out was shifted from the job 18 months after he had started it. He has now been promoted to the House of Lords and many of us think that that is quite proper.
Like most employment Bills, this one is good in parts and poor in others. On Second Reading one has to decide how to vote. If this Bill consisted only of part I, I am certain that I and my hon. Friends would vote for it. We would certainly have sought to amend it during its passage. However, when we added to it part II and coupled to it our objection to clause 3 in part I—about which I shall say more shortly—we were persuaded to table the reasoned amendment that has not been selected. That means that we shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
Before I deal with the clauses of the Bill, I must put on record my serious doubts about its timing. We are told that the Government's employment policy has proceeded step by step, but the man who advocated that policy did not last very long in the job. Bearing in mind the amount of employment legislation introduced by the Government since 1979—much of which, incidentally, has been supported on these Benches—it would have been wise to give us a breathing space and a period of consolidation. That is what is now called for in respect of employment and industral leglislation.
Like other employment Bills introduced by this Government and previous Labour Governments, this Bill does not lay the foundations for good, sound, industrial relations to see us through into the next century. I anticipated that the Minister would claim, as he has done, that, under this Government, the number of days lost through strikes has been considerably reduced. I gladly concede that point and welcome it, because the strike weapon is a crude weapon which must always be available, but should be used as a last resort rather than a first resort. The Government would be wrong to assume that the reduction in the number of days lost through strikes is due entirely to their employment policy because it has as much to do to do with their unemployment policy as with their employment policy. The Government have been content to have unemployment as a weapon in their armoury against the abuse of trade union power, which undoubtedly existed in the early 1970s, and to use it as a weapon in their economic policy. It is a pity that this Bill takes no steps to encourage industrial democracy and worker participation or to recognise the importance of good, modern trade unionism as practised, for example, by the EEPTU.
However, we must deal with the Bill as it is, and I shall start with part I. I welcome clauses 10 and 11 which remove the two remaining legal supports for the closed shop. I was surprised that the Minister allowed the Labour Front Bench to give the impression that the Bill made the

closed shop illegal. It does not do so, but it removes immunity from people who work in a closed shop. It does not mean that there can no longer he a closed shop.
I have always opposed the closed shop. When the Employment Bill was debated in Committee in 1980. I moved that the closed shop should be made illegal and, on 23 April 1980, I voted for an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) to make the closed shop illegal. I welcome the Government's ultimate, although belated, conversion. I do not like the closed shop, and I have said so frequently since 1974. I said so in 1980 and I said so again in 1982, as reported in column 784 of the Official Report on 8 February in the debate on the Employment Bill.
The Bill does not make the closed shop illegal, but I welcome the removal of legal support for it. I wish that it dealt more specifically with the pre-entry closed shop, but it does not. Apparently, the only way round the problem is for a person to get a job and then resign from the union, but the union may refuse membership initially, thereby preventing him from getting the job. The Bill ought to have dealt with the pre-entry closed shop, but it does not and it is a poorer Bill for that. The Government cannot claim that they overlooked this point because, in the evidence submitted by my party in response to the Green Paper, we made it clear that the Green Paper did not deal with the pre-entry closed shop and, in our opinion, it should have done.
We welcome clauses 12 and 13. My late lamented colleague Mr. David Penhaligon attempted to deal with the principles now proposed in clause 12 during the passage of the Trade Union Act 1984, as column 81 of the Official Report for 26 March 1984 will show. If David is anywhere about now, he must be smiling and thinking, perhaps correctly, that what the Liberals said in 1984 others think and act on in 1987.
On 23 April 1985 the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) moved a motion during the alliance Supply day calling for postal ballots. There is a moral in that. That shows that the right hon. Gentleman is not always wrong and that he can be correct on occasion. More importantly, it demonstrates yet again that such a sensible proposition could and should have been introduced years ago in previous legislation. Before leaving my consideration of part I of the Bill, I want to refer to clause 3. We will certainly vote against the clause as the Bill proceeds in the House, assuming that the Bill receives its Second Reading this evening, as I am sure it will.
The SDP-Liberal alliance rejected the proposal in clause 3 in its written response to the Green Paper. People have been shouting for the evidence to be made available. They need only go to the Library and get the Library brief, as much of the evidence sent in response to the Government's proposals is contained in it. It is interesting that, in response to the Green Paper, the TUC, CBI, the Freedom Association, the British Institute of Management, the Industrial Society, the Engineering Employers Federation and, yes, even the Conservative trade unionists all opposed the suggestion made in clause 3. Despite all that advice, the Government have persisted in including the clause in the Bill.
Clause 3 states that a vote on whether to strike can be taken. However, if people do not want to strike, they should not worry because, whatever the result of the vote, they can please themselves and ignore it with total


immunity. That is shaking the shilling. No one, certainly not I, is in favour of kangaroo courts. I have considerable doubts about union fines, sending people to Coventry and other action that some unions take. However, I would have thought that a union should at least have the right to expel a member or refuse continued membership to someone who, after a ballot has been taken, refuses to accept the ballot's result. I should have thought that that refusal of membership could be carried out bearing in mind clauses 10 and 11 about the closed shop. Therefore, as many Opposition Members have said, we must conclude that the clause displays the Government's hatred of the trade union movement.
I very much hope, for the sake of future industrial relations, that the Government will have the sense to withdraw or seriously amend clause 3 before the Bill has its Third Reading. The Minister must be aware that good industrial relations cannot be achieved by encouraging weak unions. My Liberal colleagues and I and, I understand, SDP Members are against clause 3. SDP Members, like us, believe in the majority decisions of a postal ballot being recognised by all members. I understand that tonight even the Sainsburyites also agree with that conclusion.
In addition to clause 3, we have serious reservations about part II of the Bill. If the Government were seriously to introduce a policy for all 16 to 18-year-olds—and I repeat "all"—we would be delighted. However, as it is, part II appears unfair and even unworkable in some parts of the country. It is very badly thought out. For example, the implementation of part II will differentiate between education and training. If a youngster stays on at school until he is 18, he will get nothing. If he takes Government training, he will be paid. If he refuses training, however inadequate, irrelevant or far from home, he will get nothing. If he attends a training course, quite irrespective of its quality or of his progress on it—that is a very material point when people are made to undertake a course that they do not voluntarily want to undertake—he will still get paid.
Part II is not well thought out. The Liberal party has taken some expert advice on this. Over the weekend I telephoned more than one person. Indeed, there are people who know a lot more about this than I do.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should beware of the advice of the right hon. Member for Devonport.

Mr. Smith: I did say "expert advice", so the hon. Gentleman may assume that I did not telephone the right hon. Member for Devonport.
I have been told that, while the quality of available training has improved over the years—and we concede that—there are still some areas in the country where it is not good enough. We cannot forget or overlook the Government's record on training. A Conservative Government, for party political reasons, abolished some excellent industrial training boards. I opposed their abolition, as did my colleagues. Therefore, we are highly suspicious of and doubtful about the Government's basic attitude to training and especially the quality of training.
The present so-called training was motivated by a desire to occupy idle hands. That is not a bad thing. I can say that as the windows of my house were put in at midnight last night. It would not be a bad thing to occupy idle hands.

However, when the training was first brought in, its object was to occupy idle hands and reduce the size of dole queues. I am not decrying that as an objective. However, I submit that that is the wrong basis and wrong motivation for a national training scheme to be successful.
There is no guarantee in the Bill about the quality of training. There is no guarantee about the choice of training course that can be followed. Indeed, some of my colleagues advise me that in their areas there is no choice of type of training. Is a young person to be compelled to leave home if no suitable training course is available in his area? Is he compelled to leave home to obtain payment?
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made a valid point from the Opposition Front Bench. No doubt the Minister will respond to it in his reply. What about a young person who at the moment can resit O-levels and still obtain unemployment benefit? Where will he or she stand once the Bill reaches the statute book? The principle is riddled with holes. The real solution would be training and education, including industrially based training, with cash allowances for all. Until we have such a policy, we must reject a major section of the Bill. We reject it because of its lack of vision and because there is no guarantee of quality, choice or relevance of training.
I repeat that we welcome some parts of the Bill, However, there are other parts that we oppose. As I have said, we regret the Bill's failure to lay a long-term basis for good industrial relations based on a real partnership between employees and employers.
The Government had a wonderful opportunity in 1987 to start on the path of a modern approach to industrial relations. They have failed to take that path and, instead of bringing Britain's trade unions to better and more modern practices by persuasion, and by financial help and encouragement where necessary, they have chosen once again, particularly with clause 3, the path of confrontation. That is why we shall be voting against the Government and the Bill this evening. Their policy lacks vision. It is not properly thought out, and what is needed tonight is not Second Reading but second thoughts.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: This is an interesting and significant debate tonight in a number of ways. First, it is significant for a truly exceptional maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). He showed a wide experience and knowledge of employment and training and spoke with authority about his constituency and its people. He is an eloquent and worthy successor to Francis Pym and I am sure that all hon. Members will look forward to his future contributions to our debates.
Secondly, the debate is significant for the courage of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) in seeking to predict so early in the Session how the alliance will vote on this or any other Bill during the life of this Parliament. We welcome the support that he gave to parts of the Bill and, as always, his detailed comments strike well with his experience and knowledge. One does well to listen carefully to what the Liberals have to say because in many aspects of industrial relations law they have signposted a faster speed in many of the reforms that we have introduced.
But perhaps the debate is most significant of all for the contribution that took place in the opening moments when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)


intervened in the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He is not in his seat now. He left the Chamber immediately after his rather noisy interruption. Indeed, he has a reputation for leaving platforms rather suddenly. The sadness of that interruption was his saying that he could see no connection between unemployment and restricive trade union practices. That casts a searchlight on the problems of Liverpool as they have developed over the years. There is the closest and most fundamental relationship between unemployment and restrictive trade union practices, which our legislation has sought to address.
This legislation, and that which has preceded it, arises from the serious abuses within the trade unions that must he addressed. That is not something we invented out of the blue. The step-by-step approach has been in response to specific abuses. Just as most of the main planks have now been laid in place, so now we are looking at the loopholes that have been opened up by some union leaders, or, in the case of some, the bolt-holes to which they have run to avoid facing re-election. It is now well time that those loopholes were closed and, as was presaged by the hon. Member for Rochdale, doubtless other steps will be taken in the future to address further abuses as they become apparent.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) spoke with some humour of the organisation of Conservative Trade Unionists. If he addresses seriously the lessons of the Labour party's election defeats in 1983 and 1987, he will laugh on the other side of his face. It is the Conservatives who have banked the votes of millions of trade unionists because it is our legislation that addresses their real concerns.

Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the remainder of us in the Chamber continue with the debate on the Employment Bill while the hon. Gentleman gives us his world tour? This is an important Bill and the hon. Gentleman has yet to address it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have not heard any thing out of order so far.

Mr. Batiste: It is interesting to observe already in this debate, as in every previous debate on trade union reform in the House, that the Labour party will do everything within its power to avoid progress simply because its policy is to return absolute power to union leaderships, to abuse a rank and file bound hand and foot. It is that progress of reform that the Bill is taking forward, however much as they fight against it.
I am sure that every Conservative Member welcomes interventions such as has just been made because, as they are broadcast to the country, rank and file trade union members know that that is the face of today's Labour party, just as it has been in the past.
The CTU has been referred to by two previous speakers. To put the record straight as vice-president of CTU, the Bill, as a package, is widely welcomed by all CTU members. It is equally true to say that there are some mixed feelings about parts of it, and they have been referred to. But let us make no mistake, the bulk of the Bill's proposals arise out of representations by CTU members as a result of their own experience on shop floors and in their unions and as a result of abuses of which they

have first-hand experience. They strongly welcome the Government's wholehearted and comprehensive response to the complaints that they have put forward.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman about the CTU's submission on the Green Paper. He has said that there was universal support from members, with or without a secret ballot. Is he therefore repudiating the CTU's response in the Library, which makes it clear that it opposes the Government's proposals in clause 3?

Mr. Batiste: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard me say that the package as a whole enjoys the CTU's support, but there are mixed feelings about certain aspects of it. [Interruption.] I shall deal with that in my time, not in the time given to me by the Opposition. It is fairly typical in the trade union movement, whenever a speaker is saying something unpopular, to shout them down.
The Bill addresses some specific and important abuses. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the problem that has been posed in recent times by the practice of some unions of not making their accounts readily available to the public. In the last year, I fear that I strained your patience—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not bring me into these matters.

Mr. Batiste: Let it suffice to say that I am most grateful to the Government whose legislation, in making accounts more readily available, has ensured that I shall never again have to strain your patience in referring to such matters.
The protection of union funds is another important factor. It cannot be right that trade unionists' money is available as an indemnity to their leaders who choose to break the law and expect to be bailed out from the consequences of their actions. That is another reform that is long overdue.
Another overdue reform is to ensure that all members of union executive committees face regular re-election. I wonder whether, in Committee, Labour Members will oppose the amendment that will ensure that Mr. Scargill once again faces election, or has he told them not to? We shall wait to see what the Labour party's attitude is in Committee, but I reckon most Conservative Members know what it will be. Labour Members will knuckle under and do what the militant union bosses tell them. As to secret postal ballots and the independent scrutiny of them, one must accept what the hon. Member for Rochdale said. The Liberal party has consistently argued for the postal ballot and it is right that it exists now. I am delighted that the Conservative party is in unison with the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that this measure should have the support of Mr. Arthur Scargill? During the election [n which he became the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, he said he would welcome election. It was only after he had been elected that he changed the rules so that he would not have to face re-election.

Mr. Batiste: I am delighted that the Government are now giving Mr. Scargill the opportunity to fulfil his dearest wish and face his members for re-election. It is a pity that that union, which has a long tradition of


democracy, will face a ballot of its members only because of Government legislation. That highlights the fact that this legislation is being introduced in response to abuses.
I was interested in the comment of the hon. Member for Rochdale about the closed shop. He must be aware that in the view of Conservative Members a closed shop is an abuse. It does not fit well into a democratic society.
The hon. Member for Rochdale mentioned the pre-entry closed shop and the lack of protection against it in the Bill. In the eyes of Conservative Members, if we do not take steps now, such a measure will undoubtedly have to form the basis of a further step forward.
I was looking through the Bill for some mention of the political levy. When it was debated previously we were told that we should not press for an opting-in system instead of the opting-out one. We were told that unions were going to improve their procedures and people would be able to opt out more easily, but we hear that, in some unions, people find it increasingly difficult to opt out. Almost despairing, I turned to schedule 3 which is headed, "Minor and Consequential Amendments", and found reference to changes to the Wages Act 1986. I would be most grateful if the Minister, in summing up the debate, could say whether he considers that those minor and consequential amendments will improve the ability of union members effectively to opt out of the political levy, and whether this will provide some solution for the obstructions which, all too often, they face.

Mr. Allen: Is there any shred of evidence of obstruction about the political levy after the recent ballot?

Mr. Batiste: Many people in the CTU keep telling us that they find it difficult or impossible to opt out. That evidence really matters. It is not the bogus academic research that the Opposition continually quote.
I am sure that the Opposition are waiting for my next point, which relates to disciplining those who refuse to take part in strikes. Happily, in the Conservative party nobody is mandated to follow anyone else's point of view and nobody casts block votes for other people. The MORI poll quoted by the Secretary of State shows clearly that large numbers of trade unionists support the Bill, as I do. The ballot has considerable significance because it determines whether immunities from the normal laws of the land in the area of contract will apply.
Society is entitled to ensure that a damaging strike does not occur unless there has been a properly conducted ballot and the majority of the members of that union want a strike. However, it is quite another matter to say that everyone in that union must strike, whatever the conflicting interests. Why should people be forced to give up membership of a union that they value? Unions are not just about strikes. They are about a great deal more than that. Why should those who return early from a strike—having listened to an offer by the management but not having had a further ballot—be thrown out of their union? Fundamental issues of human rights are involved, so the Government are right to press ahead. The MORI poll will show that the majority of the population—and, indeed, the majority of trade unionists—will support the measure when it is explained properly. Most of all, we support the creation of the ombudsman. In so many other aspects of our society, he has given power to the individual

to make his voice effectively heard. All too often, the large battalions grind down the individual. Therefore this is, perhaps, the most important single provision in the Bill.
Parties are judged by what they say and do. Our trade union policy, thus far, has brought us the support of large and growing numbers of trade unionists in election after election. That is not surprising because, as we have witnessed tonight, the Labour, party sits on the side of intimidation and oppression. That is the Labour party's alternative, and was clearly put in the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. He said that one day a Labour Minister would stand at the Government Dispatch Box and sweep away this legislation. If trade unionists want to hear in one sentence what this debate is about, that is it. But they do not want this legislation swept aside because they know that it is a Tory Government with Tory legislation who have given them the rights that they deserve.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate got off to a late start and a large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to take part. Brief speeches will reduce the number of disappointments.

Mr. Peter Archer: The uncomprehending complacency of the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), especially his suggestion that the present levels of unemployment have nothing to do with the Government's policies, would have tempted me to take issue had it not been for the appeal that you have just made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of which I am very conscious.
The hon. Gentleman reminded us of the exchange between the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I wonder whether a Government should have the unfettered right to decide the title of a Bill. If a document is headed "Employment Bill", one might be forgiven for thinking that it has something to do with creating employment. This Bill creates employment for no one other than an army of legal advisers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) suggested an alternative title. My candidate for the most honest title would be Industrial Relations (Victorian Values) Bill.
I am sorry that I follow the hon. Member for Elmet because I had hoped to begin on a conciliatory note. I wanted to explore whether there was any common ground remaining in this Chamber. I believe that there remain some propositions on industrial relations that have not been questioned, certainly not since 1906 or even 1875. The most fundamental of those is that to treat terms of employment, rates of pay or working conditions as matters for contract negotiation between an employer and an individual employee would be wholly unrealistic because a contract presupposes two parties with roughly equal bargaining rights—something that has not obtained in this country since the industrial revolution.
To suggest to a school leaver in my constituency, to a man or woman in his or her 50s, or to a housewife seeking part-time employment that, in 1987, they are free individually to negotiate the terms of their employment with an employer would be like telling a mouse that it is free to negotiate with the cat. The only way that employees can achieve any bargaining position is by acting


collectively. If that is disputed, I hope that the Government will say so honestly because then, at least, we will know where we stand.
But if that is accepted, the ability of employees to bargain even collectively depends, if all else fails, on having some collective sanctions—the right to take some form of individual action. If we destroy that right, they are as much at the mercy of their employers as were the serfs of the 13th century. That is why virtually every country that claims to be free expressly recognises the right to strike. In this country, for historical reasons, we have sought the same result by recognising immunities in trades disputes from the legal consequences which otherwise would have followed. Throughout this century, the debate has centred on the proper extent of those immunities.
I said that I wanted to be conciliatory, and I say that I accept that part of that debate has been about the rights of individuals who do not wish to take part in collective industrial action — although by definition, those individuals have seen fit to join a trade union. Of course their rights must be recognised, but they must be balanced against the rights of all the other individuals who, when it is appropriate, wish to avail themselves collectively of industrial action. That is what this debate is about.
When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill, he said that he was concerned to protect the rights of individuals. That is a commendable objective—I wish that he would do it more often, and I certainly do not wish to discourage him. Indeed, I wish that the Government would do it more often. I wish that they had been concerned with the rights of individuals when they introduced the new regulations on immigration. We were trying to persuade them to be concerned about the rights of individuals when we discussed the Social Security Bill last night. We only wish that they would be less selective in their concern. But we do not complain about their concern for the rights of individuals, provided that the rights of individuals who do not want to take part in industrial action are balanced against the rights of those who think otherwise and who will, by definition, be the majority.
All the arguments over the years about scab labour, the extent of the right to picket and so on have arisen because everyone knows that a strike can be busted if it is not a collective strike and if there are enough people who will not join it. So even when the majority has taken a decision, that decision can be made ineffective. Even majorities have rights, and I did not think that the Opposition would have to remind the Government of that. I remember that, in Standing Committee on the 1982 Employment Act, we tried to point out to the Government that the ballot was not a universal panacea for every problem. They did not agree; they thought that majority rights were the last word on the subject. Of course, we were talking then about majority approval for the closed shop, and I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that we are now talking not about abolishing the closed shop — only about making it wholly ineffective. That is a distinction without a difference.
Clauses 10 and 11 would be my candidate for the Booker prize, and I still venture to hope that they will be awarded the Nobel prize for literature. Those clauses provide that even if the Government's balloting procedure has been followed, and the majority is in favour of a closed shop, it still cannot be enforced. During the 1984 Trade Union Act, the Government applied their enthusiasm for the rights of the majority to industrial action and said that

that should depend on the wishes of the majority. Again, the Government were not wholly consistent. They said that a strike could not begin without a vote, but one did not need a vote to end it. They rested their case on the rights of the majority and they prescribed in great detail how the ballots should be conducted. Unions which had been running ballots for years without any complaints had to change their procedures.
Now the Government are saying that they did not really mean what they said about the rights of the majority. Even if the majority vote to take industrial action, the minority can make it completely ineffective. That manifest unfairness has been apparent not only to the TUC and the Labour party but to the CBI, which said that that unfairness would undermine the balloting process, and the other organisations and societies that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent.
When considering whether the Government believe that the law should regulate industrial relations the list of inconsistencies becomes worse. Some employees are fortunate enough to have good relations with their employers. Since the Donovan commission, those who have attempted to consider this matter objectively have recommended improving the arrangements for resolving differences, and then the question of industrial action would rarely arise. I have some professional experience in these matters and I believe that such an improvement could be achieved if the Government wanted it. But some employees have genuine grievances, and the Government are creating situations that will lead to yet more grievances.
In the Local Government Bill, the Government are proposing to compel councils such as Sandwell council in my constituency to invite competitive tenders for public catering arrangements which everyone agrees are running perfectly well. I believe that the council will receive some low tenders, and they will come from companies which achieve their low costs by reducing the earnings of catering staff or by replacing them with people who feel compelled to work for platters. Those employees will have a genuine grievance.
We have always believed that there are two possible responses to such grievances. The first is for the Government to say, "We will ensure that the law is capable of redressing your grievance", and the other is for them to say, "This is not a matter for regulation by the law; it is better if the law stays out of it." That was the philosophy that the Government have adopted on self-regulation for the City; it was their view on wages councils and it was their view when they reduced the staff of the Health and Safety Executive. But the Government are not choosing either course. They are not saying, "The law will redress your grievance" or, "The law will stay out of it." They are saying, "The law will not redress your grievance, but if you take steps to redress it yourself in any other way the law will intervene to ensure that those steps are ineffective."
The Government want the law to intervene in the affairs of trade unions. The rights of the majority are not so vital after all, that union rules which have been approved by a majority should be enforced. Indeed, in the 1984 Act, and still more in this Bill, the Government are in flagrant breach of International Labour Organisation convention No. 87, which is a point that we shall develop in Committee.
Now the Government are anxious to encourage any disaffected member — whatever his reason for being disaffected—to seek redress in the courts, and they are appointing a commissioner to encourage him. There will be no commissioner to help employees enforce their rights against bad employers; there will be no commissioner to help them cut through the morass of social security regulations when they are made redundant.
In his previous incarnations, I had to write to the Secretary of State on more than one occasion to complain that the staff at the DHSS office in my constituency were so desperately over-stretched that people were kept waiting for decisions and for their money, yet no resources are being given to solve that problem. The commissioner will simply be dedicated to disrupting the smooth working of the unions and frustrating the wishes of the majority.
Some of us have spent our political lives urging people to respect the law—even in places where it was not popular to do so. I believe that the vast majority of people want to respect the law. They want only to be assured that the law will respect them. The Government's proposals will ensure that they will see the law as intervening only to frustrate their attempts to redress their grievances.
The Bill has nothing to do with the rights of individuals. Those of us who care about the rights of individuals resent that principle being used as a wrapper to conceal what is in the package. The Bill relates to the Government's obsessive feud with the trade unions; it is not directed at any problems. We have not heard of any problems to which the proposals will relate. It is not a measure that has been asked for by employers. They want to get on with meeting their orders and most of them are not complaining about their work force. The Bill is a piece of pure class spite.
If all the officials who have been busily engaged on the Bill had been engaged in creating employment, the Secretary of State would have earned himself a better place in history.

Mr. Stephen Day: I consider it a pleasure and privilege to be able to make my maiden speech this evening. I apologise to the House for missing some of the opening remarks of the Secretary of State. I shall acquaint myself with them by reading Hansard tomorrow.
Many hon. Members knew Tom Normanton, who represented Cheadle for 17 years. I was very pleased—many hon. Members have expressed similar sentiments—when Tom was granted a knighthood. Tom was well liked in the House and in the constituency of Cheadle. He was a well-known figure, and when he walked about the constituency people would recognise him, which demonstrated the sort of following that he built up over those 17 years of dealing with constituents' problems. I am sure that our increased majority at the general election had a lot to do with his work over those 17 years, and I certainly do not underestimate the task that lies before me.
For hon. Members who do not know Cheadle, it is located in the north of England and is a very prosperous part of the country. It is proud of its historic links with Cheshire, although it currently resides in the county of Greater Manchester. I must point out to the House—hon. Members will have to decide for themselves the reason for this — that many of my constituents still

regard Cheadle as being in Cheshire. They are keeping a watchful eye on the fact that Manchester's boundaries are close, and I make a plea that they stay exactly where they are. My constituents react with horror at the prospect of Manchester's boundaries moving further south.
Hon. Members may find it surprising that Cheadle had an agricultural past. It has developed tremendously, particularly as a residential area, and there are exciting economic developments ahead" Cheadle gives the lie to the generally held view that the north is an industrial and commercial desert. It does a grave injustice to the problems of the north to draw a line across the country and say that below that line everything is all right, but above it everything is wrong. That often happens, yet if any hon. Member visits Cheadle he will see that it is a prosperous part of the north of England. I know that Cheadle has its fair share of entrepreneurs, because for 20 years I worked in sales and marketing in the export and home markets and I built up many contacts in the Cheadle area.
It is my intention, if I have the chance to do so, to draw attention not only to the problems that the north faces—we must draw attention to them—but to its successes. It is important that people know that success can happen there. Otherwise, how on earth will we attract all the people whom we need to avail themselves of the advantages that await them in the north? People must go to Cheadle and have a look.
Although Cheadle is a prosperous constituency, it recognises that other parts of the north and south do not share that prosperity. I recently appealed for professional personnel managers to come forward and offer to link their services with the YTS scheme to help to train youngsters, particularly the long-term unemployed, who do not have skills that relate directly to their employment. My commercial experience has shown that young people are quite capable of doing a job. They have the necessary skills, but they do not always have the ability to communicate them when they go for job interviews. Twenty people immediately stepped forward to offer their services free of charge to those who were less fortunate than themselves. That says a lot about my constituency. It is one of the reasons why I am proud to represent it.
At the last general election, well over 50 per cent. of Cheadle electors voted Conservativee. On the Cheadle doorsteps it was obvious to me that one of the Government's greatest successes was their industrial relations achievements and improvements. In large measure, they were brought about by a reform of trade union law. Trade unions belong to their members. They do not belong to anybody else — not to trade union leaders, or even to executive committees. They belong to individual trade union members.
Cheadle will welcome the latest Employment Bill as another step forward in the process of improving trade union democracy. I particularly welcome clause 6, which creates a duty on trade unions to have their acccounting records available for inspection, particularly by their members. It is right that trade union members should be able to avail themselves of that right.
Of further interest to me is clause 12, which extends to non-voting members of a union's principal executive committee, general secretary and president the requirement for regular elections. That must be the case. It is difficult to perceive how any hon. Member could object to that clause.
Like its predecessors, the Bill provides an extended democracy within the trade union movement. It is a natural progression in a legislative sphere that has shown great success, which has been recognised throughout the trade union movement, and particularly by the membership. Ten years ago we were told that it was not possible to bring such democracy to trade unions. We were told that the trade union leadership would not wear it, but we have seen great changes, and all of them have been to the benefit of trade union members. How different now are industrial relations and the freedoms that are available to trade union members.
Although I shall support the Bill, wiser and more experienced hon. Members have said that amendments and alterations can be considered in Committee. Therefore, I hope that we shall look carefully at all the clauses to ensure that we get things absolutely right and succeed again where we succeeded before.
If I must say anything to the Secretary of State and, indeed, to the Government, it is that the intent of the Bill is to strengthen the rights of individual union members. The most effective way of ensuring that is to outlaw the closed shop in all its forms.
I thank the House for listening to me so politely.

Mr. David Clelland: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on his maiden speech. I note that one of his interests is industry. Coming from the north-east, I agree that success can happen in the north. Our complaint is that, all too often, the Government's activities have denied our ability to exploit our potential. However, the hon. Gentleman displayed a confidence and competence—if, unfortunately, a rather jaundiced view of the subject—that will stand him in good stead and enhance the quality of debate in the House. I am sure that he will represent his constituency and party in the way in which we would expect. I understand his feelings. It is barely two years since I made my maiden speech. Like the spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), I expect to be here in 15 years, listening to other maiden speeches. However, in that time, I do not expect that I shall grow in stature in quite the same way as the hon. Member for Rochdale has done.
In his initial remarks the Secretary of State referred to the number of working days lost through strikes and the importance to industry of getting the number of strike days down. Yet the number of days lost because of injury and illness, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, is about five times the number of days lost through strikes. Indeed, every year, the number of days lost through unemployment totals a massive 700 million. If the right hon. Gentleman had paid as much attention to the problem of illness and accidents when he was Secretary of State for Social Services and to unemployment now that he is Secretary of State for Employment rather than the somewhat minor problem of strikes, he would have served the country rather better.
The first sentence of the Bill refers to new rights for trade union members. That sentence is so cynical that it is laughable. The Government, representing the interests of big business and profiteers, have about as much interest in working people as Adolf Hitler had in the rights of Jewish people. In every piece of employment legislation the Government have weakened working people's rights by

preventing their organisations from being able efficiently to represent their interests. That is what the further measure is all about, and Conservative Members are quite aware of it.
If the measures in the Bill were applied to other organisations, societies or clubs, it would be impossible for such entities to function in the way in which they were intended to do by those who formed and control them. Indeed, it is interesting to note the Tory party's double standards in insisting that ballots and democratic accountability are essential to the running of trade unions, while its chairman is appointed out of the blue—I hope that hon. Members will pardon the pun—without any say whatsoever by members of the party or even its elected Members of Parliament.
Conservatives might hasten to say that how they choose to run their organisation is a matter for them. If that is true for the Tory party, it is equally true for other organisations, including the trade union movement. It is for trade union members to decide, as the hon. Member for Cheadle said. Trade union members have more opportunity than Tory party members have to influence and change the administration of their organisation.
The Bill is based on the Government's Green Paper, entitled "Trade Unions and Their Members", which opens with a statement about the Government's achievements in limiting trade union activities. However, the Green Paper does not detail—it is conspicuous in not doing so—what the Government will have achieved by limiting and reducing the rights that working people have enjoyed. The result will be a serious worsening of the right to pursue unfair dismissal claims, taking young people out of the limited protection of wages councils and forcing them to undercut adults for low-paid jobs, and a worsening of the maternity rights of pregnant women by denying them the right to return to work in their old jobs and by generally making the return to work provisions more complex.
The Government propose to pursue further achievements. One of the achievements of the Employment Act 1982 was to give employers the right to sack striking employees and selectively to rehire. The same Tory party that introduced that legislation proposes in the Bill that workers need protection against that possibility and should therefore be able, first, to insist that a legal ballot be held before industrial action is taken, and, secondly, to ignore the result of the ballot if it is in favour of action, but again have legal protection against discipline by the union for defying the result. That is turning democracy on its head. It is nonsense, hypocrisy and a recipe for bitterness and recrimination.
Conservative Members had a majority at the time of the 1982 Act. Does that mean that those who did not vote Conservative at the last election need not obey laws passed by the Government? That is exactly the same principle as the Government propose in the Bill. No Government or law can ever make people respect one another, co-operate with one another, or work with one another if they do not support one another in hard times as well as in good times. That is a fact of life, and nothing in the Bill can change that. I have no doubt that the Government will be forced to back down from those anti-democratic proposals when the Bill reaches the Committee stage.
The Bill aims to weaken the unions and to strengthen the ability of individuals to wreck the unions. There are individuals who would relish the opportunity to do that in furtherance of their own selfish ends and political


prejudices; people such as Mrs. Irene McGibbon, who came to prominence during the miners' strike when she organised the "miners back to work" movement. Both she and her husband were paid-up members of the Tory party. She was a Tory local government candidate in 1983 and received a standing ovation at the 1984 Tory party conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] I am explaining the motives of some of those individuals who are supposed to benefit. Arthur Dungate received £10,000 in a case against Hounslow council over a closed shop agreement. He was an active member of the Right-wing Freedom Association. There was also Joanna Harris, who took Sandwell to court over its closed shop and was rewarded with a candlelit dinner with the Prime Minister. We are told that those and others are the poor innocents whose interests the Bill will protect.
The Bill is intended to deny rights and freedoms to millions by curtailing the effectiveness of the organisations that were formed to protect their interests, rights and freedoms that are recognised in most civilised countries but which the Secretary of State said today were extraordinary. In Spain the right to take industrial action is protected in its constitution. In France, unlike in Britain, workers cannot be dismissed while they are on strike. In Italy, similarly, there can be no dismissal during a dispute. In Greece and Portugal it is illegal for an employer to substitute employees during a strike, unlike in Tory Britain, where workers such as those at HFW Plastics in my constituency were sacked and replaced for standing up for their rights and dignity.
HFW Plastics knew very well how to use the Tory legislation. Its work force had agreed to a wages standstill for two years to help it out. It promised improvements when the work position improved. When it failed to live up to that promise, the workers—mostly young men and women on low pay—decided that they no longer felt obliged to work extra hours. They stopped working overtime—after a ballot, I might add—in the hope that that would encourage the employer to negotiate. They were then threatened individually by letter and told to promise in writing to, as the employer put it, "work normally". Most were intimidated and did sign, but a few stood up for their right to work only contracted hours. They were sacked for their trouble and that was more than the majority could take, so they went out on strike in support of their sacked colleagues.
The employer used the powers under the 1982 Act and replaced them all with young people desperate for work in that area of high unemployment and little job prospects, at a rate of pay considerably below the already low rate of pay of the sacked workers. The new work force was bussed into the factory every morning under heavy police protection. After many months of bitter confrontation, the workers lost their fight. That is the freedom that the Government seek to strengthen further in the Bill—the freedom of employers such as HFW Plastics to exploit people and play off one section of a desperate community against another. For people who have to go out to work that is not freedom. That is an erosion of freedom, and the Bill seeks to continue that erosion.
The Green Paper states:
The right of the individual to choose to go to work, despite a call to take industrial action, is an essential freedom.

What about the rights of the 3 million or more who are out of work? Is it not an essential freedom that they be allowed to work, or is that freedom essential only when they are taking the job of someone who is perhaps fighting to improve the conditions of his job, not only for himself, but for others?
Who supports the essential freedom that the Green Paper talks about? It appears that no one other than the Government approves of the inclusion of that essential freedom in the legislation. Against the proposed right to go to work despite a ballot to strike is the Institute of Personnel Management, the TUC, as one might expect, the CBI, the British Institute of Management, the Industrial Society, the Engineering Employers Federation and even the Conservative Trade Unionists and the Freedom Association. It is a measure of the extremism of the Government that they are taking this action and including this measure despite the opposition of so many powerful organisations. It is important that all those organisations recognise the danger to industrial relations that these measures pose. They are a recipe for industrial chaos. Many of those powerful organisations are experts in industrial relations and they know that, but this arrogant, power-mad Government are going blindly on despite their advice.
There are all the other measures that have been referred to by my right hon. and hon. Friends. One proposal is to give the Secretary of State the power to appoint a Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members, who would be able to assist a trade union member contemplating or taking legal action against a union, and even pay the legal costs involved. Only recently a constituent attended my advice service to ask about legal aid. Her teenage handicapped son had been found dead in bed at a handicapped home at which he was staying. Despite assurances about his death by the authorities responsible for the home, she wanted an inquiry into the circumstances of her son's death. That death certainly left questions unanswered. She was told that she did not qualify for legal aid to pursue the case even though she did not have the money to finance her own inquiry. The reason for the refusal was that the amount of compensation involved did not warrant legal aid. In our popular capitalist society, apparently her son was worth only £60. That is only one example of thousands where people have been unable to get justice or peace of mind because they do not have the money.
Such is the determination of the Tory party to do all that it can to eliminate its political opponents that it ignores the pleas for help from such people, yet it spends taxpayers' money on enabling the further undermining of trade unions by politically motivated individuals such as those that I described earlier.
Apart from those direct attacks on the unions, there are also proposals to impose almost impossible and extremely costly administrative burdens. Under the Bill, that some member who will be able to defy the express wishes of hundreds or thousands of his or her colleagues will also be empowered to inspect the accounting records, audited or otherwise, of the union. Unions will have a duty to keep such records available for inspection by any member, who may be accompanied by an accountant.
Which large organisation could possibly function under such a legal duty? Even the CBI, in its response to the Green Paper, recognised the administrative nightmare that that could be. The Government apparently disagree. If


that is such a good idea, why not impose the same duty on other organisations? After all, there is no obligation on the part of companies to give shareholders the same sort of detailed information as it is proposed unions should give.
Provision is also made to facilitate the selfish by obliging employers who deduct union dues from pay to stop making those deductions if a member indicates his or her intention to resign from the union. There is no duty on the member or the employer to inform the union of that resignation. The union will have the administrative burden of tracing individual resignations from among thousands of members in order to inform officials, correct records and so on. In spite of that, the unions will be obliged by other parts of the Bill to keep records constantly up to date in order to facilitate compulsory postal ballots.
The Government intend to threaten individual officers of the union—full-time, paid employees—by denying them the support of their employer if they are caught up in legal proceedings as a result of doing their job. I did not notice the Secretary of State for the Environment volunteering to pay his own legal costs on the numerous occasions on which he ended up in court because of his lawlessness. However, it is to be different for trade union employees.
Most people, even those who would argue for the right of an individual not to belong to a trade union even though all his or her workmates are members, would probably agree that those who do not wish to be part of the organisation cannot, in fairness, insist on benefiting from the activities of the organisation, particularly if they positively oppose its activities. Yet clause 10 proposes that non-union members should not be treated less favourably than members. Those who are paying their dues and supporting the union will pass on any benefits in terms of improved conditions or remuneration to those would-be leeches, who already have a larger take-home pay because they do not pay union dues.
The Government propose to outlaw the closed shop. What for? How big is the so-called problem of people being allegedly intimidated into union membership? The Green Paper states that since August 1980—seven years—there have been only sixty complaints of dismissal for non-union membership. Thirty of those cases were settled by conciliation. The Government hope to encourage resignations from unions because, in the words of the Green Paper, on which the Bill is based:
Further restrictions on the closed shop would provide greater flexibility in the labour market and increased freedom of choice for employers when recruiting.
Working people who might be tempted to save their union dues because they think that they are all right or those who might not be in unions and wonder why it should be necessary, should ponder those words carefully. Therein lies the whole philosophy of the Tory party in relation to working people. They are items to be traded on the market; to be played off one against another; to be used and discarded at the will of the employers and in the interests of profit. That is what the Bill is all about and the Government may inadvertently have done working people a big favour by alerting them to the real nature of Tory freedoms.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is not much time left. I repeat my plea for brevity, please.

Mr. David Evennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on his excellent and interesting maiden speech. Making one's first speech in the Chamber is always an unnerving experience, but I think that we would all agree that he acquitted himself with distinction. We look forward to further contributions and frequent participation in debates in the future. It is interesting to compare my hon. Friend's maiden speech, which was so constructive, with the destructive speech of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Meacher). He not only refused to say what the Labour party would do on trade union matters if it was in office, but spent the whole time in destructive discussion rather than in being constructive, which is what we would have hoped.
I regret the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). It was an interesting and entertaining speech and it was certainly to the fore, but he was the poodle of the trade union barons and the trade unions when he was the Secretary of State for Employment. We must never forget that.
I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Bill. It is a relatively short measure but it is of considerable significance. I support it and the general philosophy behind the Government's approach to a step-by-step reform of trade union legislation, which has been so successful to date. I want to confine my comments to a brief discussion of four of the provisions in the Bill: postal ballots, the commissioner, the closed shop and the Training Commission.
During the last Parliament I served on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill that eventually became the Trade Union Act 1984. We had many lengthy debates in Committee and in the House on the method of the postal ballot. One view expressed forcefully was that the workplace ballot was the most effective means of obtaining the view of union members and that a postal ballot would be ineffective because members would receive their ballot papers at home, place them behind the clock on the mantelpiece and never get round to completing and returning them. That is a quaint view of modern trade unionism and one that needed reform. We are looking at the reform proposal today in order to change the method of balloting to a postal ballot. That will be much more effective than ballots conducted in the workplace.
There was another view debated at great length and that is the one we have heard from the Opposition this evening. It is the old Labour party idea that the old system is the correct one where the views of union leaders and shop stewards are paramount and the membership is ignored and is expected to toe the line. Apart from the—

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Evennett: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. Opposition Members have spent so long in diatribes against the Bill that those of us who have sat here for many hours have only a short time in which to make our points.
I welcome the fact that postal ballots are now to be instituted. I am pleased to see that the Bill requires ballots on political funds and for the election of senior union officers and executive members to be conducted by post. Secret postal ballots must be the order of the day. A fully


postal method of elections and independent scrutiny will enhance the democracy within the trade union movement. It is no good for the Opposition to state that they believe in democracy within the trade unions but thwart every proposal to increase democracy within the trade union movement and give the results of the ballots greater legitimacy.
We all share the view that every union exists to serve its members and the members of every union should have the right to exercise control over that union. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Individuals often find themselves in direct conflict with their union in which the individual is isolated and poorly equipped to fight against the financial, legal and administrative resources of the union. Several constituents have raised that problem with me. I hasten to state that they do not always share my political persuasion. They have a genuine concern and grievance with their union. They look to the Government to change the law so that they can obtain redress for their problems. Although individual union members have been provided with legal remedies against the worst excesses of union misbehaviour, often the aggrieved individuals cannot pursue those remedies because they are unable to challenge the union on equal terms.
Unions are powerful bodies. To an individual member seeking to take them on, they appear to have limitless resources. Individual union members need help and protection from an appropriate quarter if they are to fight effectively for their rights. Therefore, I am pleased that the Bill provides for the appointment of a Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members. Previous employment legislation has attempted to redress the balance so that unions are the servants of their members rather than their masters. Unions are now required to conduct proper elections and to ballot their members before taking industrial action or operating a political fund with their money.
The changes have blown the wind of democracy through union practices and made unions more accountable and responsive to their members. The reforms have been welcomed by the vast majority of trade union members and have attracted widespread support. If a union fails to obey the requirements of the law in dealing with its members, those members must be able to challenge it. Because of the nature of the union's behaviour, that challenge will necessarily be a legal one. There can be few people who relish the thought of litigation and to the individual the idea of taking a powerful body to the law must be unnerving. That individual needs advice, support and perhaps representation and I hope that the commissioner will be able to offer that help to union members.

Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evennett: No. I am sorry, but I have not time.
It is always difficult to debate the closed shop. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) when he says that the closed shop provision in the Bill perhaps does not go far enough. I hope that we shall be able to debate other measures in Committee to take the matter further.
All Conservative Members, I believe, oppose in principle the idea of a closed shop because it represents a

denial of the individual's freedom of choice. It is wrong that anybody should be compelled to join a union against his wishes, and yet, until the passage of recent legislation, that was exactly what was happening. Only union members were employed and the person who failed to join a union would be dismissed.
Thankfully, the worst excesses of the closed shop have been removed by provisions of the Employment Acts of 1980 and 1982. Cases of workers being dismissed for nonmembership of a union are becoming more rare. However, regrettably, the unacceptable practices of the closed shop have not been completely eradicated.

Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evennett: I am sorry, but I cannot. I have no time.
Some trade union members still face difficulties at work. They face harassment, discrimination and abuse simply because they wish to exercise their free will and not become union members. I cite the case of one of my constituents who has never been, or wished to be, a union member. In the recent past his firm was taken over by another firm which operates a closed shop. Since then, he has been harassed constantly at work because of his views. His employer is unwilling or unable to prevent such abuse. As a consequence, his health has deteriorated, largely because of stress and worry. The only thing saving him from being forced out of his job is that he will shortly reach retirement age. A hard-working man with strong principles has suffered considerably and unfairly and that cannot be right in this day and age.
I have been unable to consider all of the points that I wished to raise because of the time factor, but I must conclude by saying that we have heard a lot of artificial opposition from Opposition Members. Conservative Members are determined to reform where that is necessary in the best interests of individual union members and of the future of the country. The proposals are not draconian or oppressive, as Opposition Members wail. They merely continue the programme of step-by-step reform that has been so popular among trade union members and so successful in dealing with the abuse of the power that the unions have exercised.
The broad outline of the Bill should be welcomed and supported. I hope that we shall have much more debate in Committee so that at the end of the day we shall get another Employment Bill on the statute book in the interests of trade union members.

Mr. Ron Leighton: With this nasty and unnecessary Bill the Government are behaving like a dog returning to its vomit. No one can claim that the country's problems—the lack of investment and training or the crash on the stock exchange—are the fault of the unions or that the unions are too powerful in relation to the employers. At a time when rampant fraud and crime in the City are to be dealt with by self-regulation, the Government, motivated by malevolence, spite and ideological dogma, are introducing yet another anti-trade union Bill—the fourth in eight years—to entangle and ensnare the trade unions in even more restrictive and oppressive legislation.
The Government should spare us the cant about protecting the rights of individual workers and employees, given their shameful record of reducing employment


rights. They have abolished the fair wages resolution in schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975. They have restricted the role of the wages councils in guaranteeing minimum terms and conditions for workers in low-paid and poorly organised industries. They have raised the qualifying period for unfair dismissal complaints. They have made things more difficult for workers at industrial tribunals. They have reduced maternity rights for women and advance notification of redundancies. As a result of the Government's reduction of the scope and effectiveness of statutory employment rights, British workers have fewer rights than those of any other west European country. At a time of mass unemployment that worsens the imbalance of power between the worker and his or her employer.
It is against that background that we must consider the one-sided and hostile nature of the Government's attitude to the trade unions as displayed in the Bill. It is pathetic that the Secretary of State should play with words such as democracy. If the Government believed in democracy, they should have started with a postal ballot of members for the post of chairman of the Conservative party. But we know that that was decided by an electoral college of one. Everything to do with the Conservative party is decided by that autocratic one. Hence the servility, sycophancy and toadying on the Government Front Bench. The Government should be the last to talk about democracy.
Trade unions live by ballots. They hold them every day on a myriad of issues. For all their faults, they are probably the most democratic organisations in Britain. They are manifestly more democratic than most companies. They are more democratic than universities, the Jockey club or the Conservative party. Few Conservative Members have any experience of union life. When they discuss union matters they enter a fantasy land, a mythical world of their own, which is a parody of reality. Trade unions were invented in this country. They are native to it. They are not the alien enemy within, and any sensible Government would treat them as partners.
Who wants the Bill? Do the employers or their organisations want it? Have they been demanding it? We all know that the answer to that is no. We all know that the CBI and the managers' organisations like the IPM and BIM—every reputable body in the field—have warned the Government that they are going over the top and that the measures will be counter-productive. They have pointed out that there is little point in ordering the unions to conduct ballots if they are then to be undermined by the legislation. The employers do not want the legislation, the unions do now want it, the practitioners concerned with industrial relations in the field do not want it. Why, then should the Government force it upon them regardless of their express wishes? It can only be out of ideological dogma and malice, because they think there is some political mileage in it, whatever damage it might cause to industrial relations.
Let us consider how the Government propose to undermine ballots. Clauses 10 and 11 deal with the closed shop. In some cases, closed shops have been traditional, as the lawyers in the Conservative party well know. Previously, the Government said that they could exist only if workers voted for them by unprecedented majorities of 80 per cent. or 85 per cent. of those participating—this from a Government who won the support of only 42·3 per cent. of those who voted at the general election.
In practice, where such ballots were held, they were uniformly successful. Do the Government propose to abide by the ballots and to respect the wishes expressed at the ballot box? Precisely the opposite. They propose to abolish the ballots. They say that there can be no closed shops whether the workers vote for them or not. That is hypocrisy. The only ballots which the Government favour are those which they think they will win. When reality intervenes and they lose, they abolish the ballots and rule by diktat instead. What perverted so-called democrats they are.
Clause 3 denies to unions the right to discipline their members if they work when the majority of members have voted to strike in a proper secret ballot. What is the point of having a ballot if it has no effect? Let us consider what is proposed. If the ballot goes against industrial action, it is binding and has to be abided by on pain of the union being savagely penalised if it takes action. But if the ballot goes in favour of industrial action, it is not binding, it has no validity and everyone can do what they like. No doubt the minority will be aided by a small army of police in riot gear. How disingenuous can one get? Why have ballots at all? This is precisely the worry of the CBI and the other employers' organisations, which have said that this undermines the principle of balloting. Why are the Government so pigheaded that they cannot listen to those at the sharp end of industry? The Bill is bound to be seen as a scabs' charter and as hopelessly one-sided.
Like other organisations, trade unions have rules. The rules are the contract between the members and the union. The rules should be honoured and should govern matters such as discipline. Do the Government say that unions should have no discipline or cohesion? No; that should happen only in this partial instance, because previous legislation has decreed that if union members picket other than at their place of work, or in too great numbers, the unions must take action to discipline their members or face legal action which could lead to swingeing fines or the sequestration of their funds. There was a recent example of this at Wapping. Sometimes the Government chatter about giving the unions back to their members, but moving in the sequestrators takes away the unions from their members. That can be done if a union does not discipline its members.
Clause 3 is an aid to strike-breaking. It gives rights to minorities and takes them away from majorities. There must be a balance of collective as well as individual rights. The tradition of democracy is that majority votes prevail. We accept that in every company boardroom, in every organisation in the land and in the House. That is the basis of democracy. There would be chaos if votes were meaningless and minorities went their separate ways, but that is the length to which the Government will go to help scabs to break strikes. Contrary to the impression that the Government are trying to create, we should appreciate the fact that disciplinary rules are used sparingly. In addition, those involved are already protected by the rules of natural justice which, if breached, are grounds for action against the union in the High Court.
The Government want to have their cake and eat it: requiring a secret ballot and then encouraging people not to abide by it when the majority is for industrial action. If the Government believed in equity in industrial relations, they would legislate for the right to strike, which does not exist now. That would mean that during a lawful strike the contract of employment would be suspended and


could not be torn up by the employer, as happened at Wapping. Instead, the Government are interested only in stacking the cards against the unions and making it difficult to operate coherent trade unions.
There are other thorns to be driven into trade union flesh. Clause 6 would enable members to inspect the unions' accounts with a professional adviser. Unions should and do publish their accounts, but here again they are being singled out to meet standards which no comparable organisations must meet. Shareholders of companies do not have such rights, nor will the Government allow employees the right to company information. The Government have a dismal record on the freedom of information.
Clauses 18 and 19 contain the extraordinary proposal for a new commissioner for trade unions to assist and fund legal action by members against their trade unions. At present, there are few such complaints, so Government policy is to encourage, incite and provoke such complaints and to aid them with a publicity campaign and money. We already have a Certification Officer, who is quite adequate, so this commissioner will be a trade union harassment officer. As my right hon. and hon. Friends said, at a time when health and safety inspectors and wages inspectors, who are there to deal with employers who break the statutory provision, are being cut and at a time when law centres are being cut, money is being made available to single out and attack trade unions. What more graphic evidence could we have of the Government's animus against trade unions?
Other damaging causes include clauses 23, 24 and 25, which deal with the emasculation of the MSC. I advise hon. Members who are interested to read the report of the debate on 13 March 1973 when Maurice Macmillan set up the MSC. He said that it should be an organisation of the parties concerned—the employers, the unions, the local authorities and the education authorities, but not the Government. He said that that organisation should be independent of the Government, and that Government should have a "hands off" attitude. That is now to be destroyed. Its functions are to be taken back and centralised in the Department of Employment. The name of the organisation is to be changed. Six more employers' representatives are to serve in the organisation, and instead of being independent it will now become the tool and the handmaiden of the Government. It is to be neutered and undermined. That will largely be the end of the MSC as we have known it. Another backward and reprehensible step is making YTS financially compulsory.
The Secretary of State knows that the MSC is strongly opposed to making the YTS financially compulsory. He knows that the MSC gave evidence to the Select Committee opposing the withdrawal of benefit and the attempts to make it compulsory. The voluntary nature of YTS was designed in at its inception. People were to be attracted to it by the quality of the training and not by financial compulsion. The Secretary of State also knows that he has recently received a letter from the chairman of the MSC, Sir Bryan Nicholson, opposing what the Secretary of State is doing. However, what has happened to Sir Bryan Nicholson? He has been kicked out. The MSC does not have a chairman. Instead there is a stopgap, who is not a proper chairman. When a chairman is appointed, we shall have to have a look at him because he will be yet

another person to have been appointed by an electoral college of one. He will be another stooge; a tool and a handmaiden of the Government, who seek to destroy the MSC as it was set up by Maurice Macmillan in 1973.
The Bill is vile and odious. The Government cannot tolerate any independent thought or any independent centre of power. We saw that when they abolished the Greater London council. If we believe in a democratic pluralist society, we should support free and independent trade unions, not only in Poland, but in Britain. If we believe that, we should throw out this Bill with contempt.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I fear that you and I, Mr. Speaker, are suffering from the same complaint. I wish you well.
The Government's reform of trade unions has been an outstanding and popular success. The evidence for that assertion is clear. We now have the lowest level of strikes for 50 years. Many moderate trade union leaders recognise the need for reform. Trade union members have rejected those of their leaders whose ambition and arrogance have tempted them to assume powers to which they were not entitled and to ride roughshod over the wishes of those who elected them. All those facts—fewer strikes, greater responsibility, and power that is exercised by the previously powerless membership—are clear evidence of the welcome that is afforded to the Government's step-by-step approach as embodied in the Employment Act 1980, the Employment Act 1982, and the Trade Union Act 1984.
The Government have been so successful in combating the industrial anarchy of the past and revivifying the nation's economy because their reforms have been demonstrably fair and clearly non-partisan. The concept of fair play has always been one of this country's greatest strengths. The widespread welcome that has been given to the Government's trade union legislation by all shades of unbigoted political opinion would never have happened had not the proposals been so obviously equitable.
Past legislation has not been partisan because it has not meant a transfer of power back to the Government from the unions, but a shift of power within the unions away from the leadership back to the mass membership. In the main, the measures before us today continue this process of essential reform, but contained in the Bill is one proposal that runs contrary to the purpose and spirit of previous widely welcomed trade union reforms. It is contrary to both the purpose and spirit of those reforms as it fails the twin tests of enhancing the rights of the majority of trade union members and fails to be demonstrably fair. I refer to the proposal to permit a union member, without penalty, to ignore a democratically reached decision to strike, yet still retain all the benefits of union membership.
It has been suggested that that proposal is an extension of democracy, that it enhances a basic freedom and that it will lead to greater peace and harmony within the workplace. It will do none of those things.
I trust that we all agree on three basic premises: first, that membership of any organisation imposes duties as well as conferring benefits; secondly, that within any complex society there is no such principle as an absolute right; and thirdly, that in a free and democratic system it is for the good of all that decisions reached democratically are abided by universally. This proposal would permit a person to retain the privilege of union membership while


evading the possible penalties. If we believe that a person should be unable to retain his employment after renouncing union membership, for any reason, including their wish not to strike, we should say so and take remedial action.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: rose—

Mr. Sayeed: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I intend to speak for a short time so that other hon. Members may take part in the debate; otherwise I would give way.
If we believe that unions are still inadequately democratic, let us say so and act. However, let us not undermine democratic decision making. After all, we do not permit members of CND to withhold that proportion of their taxes that we spend on defence. We do not permit the people of this country to decide which laws they will or will not obey. Rather, we say that the privilege of membership of a fair and democratic society imposes obligations that must be met by all. Having determined that fact generally, we are wrong to undermine it specifically.
I believe that this measure will prolong rather than limit strike action. There is no doubt in my mind that some employers will be tempted to gamble that a gradual drift back to work will absolve them of the need to face the root cause of strike action.
I believe that this proposal will sour relations within the workplace. When those who take strike action return to work, we can imagine their feelings about those colleagues who will share in any benefits from that strike, but who have suffered none of the financial difficulties of that strike.
Democratically run trade unions, run for the benefit of their members, have a right and proper place in our society. They fulfil a necessary and valuable function. Hitherto the Government have been careful to enhance and entrench democracy in trade unions. Hitherto we have enacted legislation that is demonstrably fair. If we are to continue along that path, we should amend clause 3.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I see that tonight I have something in common with the "Unemployment Minister"—I have a poppy on my coat. In fact, other hon. Members also are wearing poppies tonight.
While I have been listening to the debate I have looked at my poppy and I began to think back to what it really meant. It meant that a lot of people died and a lot of people went to war. Quite a few of those people who went to war were from the trade union movement of the 1930s—the era when the trade union movement began to strengthen. I ask the Secretary of State to remember that it was those same people who built up one of the best trade union movements in the world.
Some of them gave their lives fighting a fascist state that took trade union rights away from its people in Germany. The Secretary of State and the Tory Government should not go down the same path as Hitler. Taking freedoms away from people, especially working people, is a dangerous course.
Someone listening to Tory Members might think that trade unions are unpopular, but the results of a Gallup poll published last week showed that 71 per cent. of those interviewed thought that trade unions were a good thing.

They were even more popular than the royal family. I hope that the Secretary of State takes that on board when he replies.
Clause 3 is nothing more than a scabs' charter. I worked down the pit for 27 years and I have been a union official for 20 years. I have always honoured agreements with managers but the managers have not always honoured agreements with us. We always had proper strike ballots in the miners' union. Two or three people, perhaps members of the Tory party, might have disagreed with the result and might have wanted to take the union to court, as happened during the miners' strike. We saw what happened to the National Union of Mineworkers. We saw how it was dragged through the courts under law after law and how the courts did it in every time they got a chance.
I hope that when the Bill is in Committee Tory Members will oppose some points in the clauses. It is a disgrace that such a Bill has been introduced. We have one of the finest trade unions in the land. Some hon. Members have referred to Arthur Scargill. They can call him what they like but he is the finest union leader we have had for decades. That same union leader was defending the working class and jobs. Thousands of miners have lost their jobs since the miners' strike.
There have been references to postal ballots. Tory Members have not had a ballot. When did they have a ballot for their leader? When did they have a ballot for the party chairman? When have doctors, lawyers and barristers had a ballot? Some hon. Members said that they were elected on a secret ballot; they may have been, but not on a secret postal ballot. If we can have secret postal ballots for unions, surely we can have them for local government elections and general elections as well.
Finally, let me mention the compulsory nature of the so-called YTS, in which young people are to be thrown into jobs because it is their only alternative to not being paid. It is a disgrace that the Government call that good training—dragging a youth by the scruff of his neck on to a scheme which he has no wish to join. It is deplorable and undemocratic. The Government are going down the wrong path, the path of undemocratic thinking; and I warn them that the trade union movement will not stand for it.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Although the debate has not been as long as we should have liked, because of the earlier statements, it has been constructive and valuable, and at least a dozen hon. Members have had a chance to contribute.
I pay especial tribute to the two maiden speeches that have graced the debate. I had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who succeeded a distinguished Conservative Member. He was able to draw on his experience of training in the work that he did before his election, and I am sure that he will make many valuable contributions in the future. I was sorry that I was not present to hear the speech by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), but I understand that his was also a valuable contribution,. arid I hope that that he too will continue to make such contributions.
Although the Secretary of State has referred to clause 29 of the Bill, I do not believe that any other hon. Members have done so. The right hon. Gentleman described the clause as giving civil servants the same


relationship with their unions as other workers have with theirs. We shall discuss that in Committee, but it is fair to say now that the clause deems civil servants who may not have a contract of employment as having such a contract for the purposeses of certain clauses in the Bill, and of anti-trade union legislation generally. We shall want to pursue in Committee whether that means civil servants having the worst of all worlds.
Part II of the Bill, which I believe the Government decided to incorporate only a month or so ago, is of enormous significance. It seeks to implement the Government's new policies on training, and should therefore be taken in conjunction with clause 4 of the Social Security Bill which was debated yesterday. Let me make it clear again that the Opposition are utterly opposed to the policy of denying young people under the age of 18 their entitlement to supplementary benefit, or income support, as it will be called. I could quote the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who spelled out clearly in the Committee debate on the Social Security Act 1986 that such a measure would amount to making YTS compulsory, and said that the Government rejected totally the idea of denying young people supplementary benefit.
The Secretary of State managed to raise a great cheer at the Conservative party conference when he attacked young people for pursuing a career filling up benefit forms. To many of us both inside and outside the House, that was a deeply offensive statement. Many hon. Members represent areas where there is youth unemployment on a deplorable scale—areas where, perhaps 10 or 20 years ago, only one or two people in a school class did not obtain a job when they left school, and where now only a handful of a class of 30 have any hope of obtaining a decent job. It is utterly untrue that young people do not want to work, or to take part in training schemes—if they are valuable and will enhance their chances of obtaining a job. There is no evidence from research commissioned by the Department of Employment or anyone else to suggest other than that young people desperately want to work. If they are given the chance and given decent wages, they will do so. It certainly ill becomes any hon. Member to make such attacks on any of our young people.
We are opposed to this measure on the fundamental issue of social justice, but we also oppose it because of the effect that it will have on the training schemes. Hon. Members must recognise that it will not be conducive to more effective training. It will not lead to better arrangements in individual schemes if some young people are there because they have been compelled under the duress of being denied their benefit. Surely hon. Members recognise that the challenge should be to make these training schemes sufficiently attractive so that young people will want to go on them. By introducing this element of compulsion one removes that incentive. If the schemes enhance young people's chances of getting jobs, and if they can see that and get a decent allowance, they will enter them.
It is a mistake to create a new situation in which young people will be compelled, as the Minister for Health said in the previous Parliament, to enter these schemes rather than choose to take part in them in order to achieve better training. The House should be reminded that on every occasion when it has been asked the question the

Manpower Services Commission has opposed this measure. I hope that the Minister of State will refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) in an interjection. There are many other ways in which young people can better themselves and improve their prospects of obtaining employment apart from participating in a youth training scheme. The 21-hour and 12-hour rules are important and I hope that the Minister of State will answer that point, as the Secretary of State said he would.
Part II of the Bill seems to give enormous powers to the Secretary of State. In that sense, it is an autocratic measure and it seems as if the role of the new training commission will be very different—perhaps more of an advisory role—from the role of responsibility that presently resides in the Manpower Services Commission. We are deeply concerned about clause 25 which gives the Secretary of State power to designate people on these schemes as either being employed or unemployed. It seems likely that this clause will be used to deny trainees their employment status and many of the rights that go with that status.
The Secretary of State spoke about the Government's decision to take the jobcentres back into the Department of Employment and to combine that function in the local unemployment benefit offices. We suspect that this is another measure aimed at harassing people to take part in these schemes. It is a way of trying to make more effective the means whereby civil servants can prevent people from getting benefit on the grounds that they are refusing a job, perhaps because it is totally unsuited to them or because the wages are much lower than those which they previously obtained or, indeed, that they refused to accept a training place. Instead of improving the quality of training and attracting people to it on that basis, the whole emphasis of the Government is to erect an administrative structure as a means of harassing the unemployed and coercing them into accepting places on these Government schemes.
The most important part of the Bill, and the part that has rightly taken up most of the time of hon. Members who have spoken, is part I, which seeks to implement the Government's proposals on the trade unions, most of which were contained in the Green Paper. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said in opening this debate, the genesis of these trade union legislative measures goes back to last autumn, if not the summer, when the Government took a major strategic decision to fight the forthcoming election not on the basis of their record but on the basis of new policies that would seek to carry to even further extremes the ones that they enacted during that Parliament and the Parliament before. At the same time, the Government decided that there were still votes to be had from bashing the trade unions. That was the motivation for the Green Paper.
Many of us hoped that, when the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) took up office as Secretary of State for Employment, he might have provided an opportunity for the Government to reconsider the measures contained in the Green Paper, inserted largely for electoral purposes. Sadly, that has not been the case and we are saddled with a Bill which seeks to implement these proposals. Hon. Members must surely recognise how extreme these measures are. We support the views of the Trades Union Congress. We recognise that hon. Members do not often pay much attention to the TUC's views on these matters, but when organisations


such as the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation are united in their opposition to some of the key proposals in the Bill, hon. Members must ask themselves what is the purpose of these proposals. Surely hon. Members will think again when professional organisations such as the institute of Personnel Management, the British Institute of Management and the Industrial Society, to name only three, are united in their opposition to many of the proposals in the Bill in respect of trade unions. Hon. Members may ask themselves why such organisations as the CBI and the EEF oppose some of the key proposals in the Bill. Surprising as it may seem, some of them, as employers' organisations, oppose the measures because of their basic unfairness to the trade unions. That shows just how extreme these proposals are.
I wish to take two examples which have not been developed at great length in the debate because, understandably, most hon. Members have concentrated on the outrage contained in clause 3. First, I shall take the proposal which requires all officials who attend meetings of trade union executives to be directly elected. This is an outrageous interference in the affairs of our trade unions. As the Green Paper stated in 1983, it is reasonable for a general secretary to be appointed by a trade union not on the basis of a ballot, but on the basis of his competence and effectiveness in performing his job. It could be argued that executives believe that they are more likely to find the right person through appointment rather than direct election.
Trade unions have different approaches to this matter. Some, such as the AEU, elect virtually all their officials, some appoint them, and others have a mixed arrangement whereby some senior officials are elected and others are not. There is a good case for a system whereby employees elect their executive, who are lay members accountable to the membership, and appoint their senior officials. There is then a very clear relationship—the officials are the servants of the democratically elected executive. If we insist on the direct election of some of those officials, they acquire a different status and therefore a different relationship with the executive. I do not claim that that formula of appointed officials and elected executives is necessarily the better one, but the case for that system is sufficiently strong for it to be outrageous that the Government are legislating to make such an arrangement illegal.
The second example I wish to quote is that of the balloting arrangement. We could spend the whole night quoting Ministers' statements, uttered in the last Parliament, which contradict these proposals.

Mr. Edward Leigh: They were wrong.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman says that Ministers were wrong. He is wrong, but he is entitled to argue that point because, as he reminded us this evening, he was one of the few Tory rebels who supported postal ballots in the last Parliament. During the Committee stage of the Trade Union Bill, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) spelt out at great length the case for workplace ballots and why they should not be disallowed. The most recent Green Paper states:
There is some evidence from the political fund review ballots to suggest a greater percentage poll in a ballot held at a workplace than by post.
Some evidence. That is an understatment, and anyone who studies the data knows perfectly well that with a workplace ballot, in general there is a much higher percentage poll

than with a postal ballot. There are good reasons why that happens. Some of the reasons were spelt out by the Minister of State before the election. In passing, I should state that some workers do not want to give their home addresses. Postal lists are difficult to maintain, especially when there is a high turnover of young people, and that problem arises in trade unions with a large number of young people moving from address to address. Even with the most efficient system in the world, a high percentage poll is difficult to achieve.
What is the objective test of a good balloting arrangement? Surely the only objective test lies in the percentage poll that it achieves.

Mr. Leigh: Democracy.

Mr. Strang: That is democracy. The higher the percentage poll, the better the ballot.
The Government are legislating to make illegal those ballots that we know on average produce a higher poll. That is an outrageous and monstrous interference in the affairs of our trade unions. Hon. Members have referred to many other problems in the Bill. For example, they referred to the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members and the requirement that there should be different ballots at different working places and, of course, reference was made to the notorious clause 3.
The other reason why the employers' organisations are opposed to certain parts of the Bill is that they honestly believe that parts of the Bill will be inimical to good industrial relations. If I had the time, I would have liked to read out the important statement made by the Engineering Employers Federation. That statement spells out how clause 3 will lead to poorer industrial relations or undermine the role of trade union officials who play a constructive role in the relationship with employers. The statement spells out how the Bill will discredit the whole basis of the pre-strike ballot and almost certainly lead to more unofficial action.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) spelt out a few moments ago, the Government have systematically whittled away a whole range of working people's rights. They have eroded rights against unfair dismissal; they have eliminated many workers from the protection of the wages councils and have refused to give the wages councils the resources necessary to maintain minimum wages. They have also refused to give the Health and Safety Executive adequate resources. The erosion of workers' rights is one reason why the need for constructive and positive trade unionism in this country is greater now than it has ever been. Another reason for that stems from the growth of temporary, low-paid part-time work. To their credit, the trade unions are turning their attention to that to organise those workers and try to end or minimise the degree of exploitation to which they are subjected.
If anyone studies health and safety at work in this country since the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, they will see the crucial role that the trade unions have played in this area. In areas such as asbestos and the rubber industry, to take two well-known examples, the trade unions have played a major role in reducing hazards at work. I could describe the whole matter systematically, but time does not allow. However, that is not to say that the trade unions did it all themselves. The trade unions and workers have a vested interest in higher safety standards


at work. It is therefore natural that the trade unions should invariably be in the vanguard in seeking improved legislation and improved working practices to reduce the number of deaths and accidents at work. We stand four square behind the case for positive and constructive trade unionism in this country. That is why we deeply resent the measures in the Bill.
The Government and their predecessors have sought to suppress any democratic institutions which disagree with their approach to the way to deal with our problems. We have had the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities. We have had the shackling of those local councils that are elected by turning local councillors into virtual puppets of the Government. We have had legislation to limit the extent to which local authorities can communicate with their electorates. Now, the trade unions, those great independent organisations which are fundamental to a plural society, are again to be subjected to further legislation designed to undermine them and weaken their contribution to society.
Throughout the debate, speaker after speaker from the Opposition Benches has spelt out the intensity of the Labour party's opposition to the Bill. Earlier this afternoon, in his public expenditure statement, the Chancellor revealed the scope that he had for increasing public spending or cutting taxation. Instead of taking the opportunity to provide additional resources to improve the quality of training in Britain, it is clear that the Training Commission will be forced to provide training places on the cheap and that most of the women and men who will enter the schemes will be paid at a lower rate than under the present community programme.
Instead of making training schemes more attractive and relevant for young people, they are to be coerced on to the schemes by denying them state benefit. Instead of listening to the views of the TUC, the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Institute of Personnel Management, the Government are going ahead with certain proposals in the Green Paper which all of them have rejected. Instead of providing a legal framework for constructive and positive trade unionism, we shall have another piece of vindictive anti-union legislation which can only damage industrial relations in Britain. It is for those reasons that the Opposition will vote against the Bill tonight.

The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope): Let me start on a non-controversial note. It was a pleasure to hear the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). He paid a warm tribute to his predecessor, Francis Pym, who made a distinguished and individual contribution to the House. His successor clearly brings to the House great experience, particularly in training, and will, I am sure, continue to be listened to with care.
We also welcome the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). His predecessor, Tom Normanton, was industrious here, in Cheadle and in Europe. After hearing his successor's speech, I am sure that the new hon. Member for Cheadle will be a worthy successor as a representative of the north-west.
None of the Bill's provisions will have come as a surprise to anyone who follows these matters. The Bill

carries a step forward popular policies which have the approval of the electorate and which have worked for Britain's benefit.
I have given up some of my time to let some more hon. Members speak in the debate because it started late. I apologise in advance if I cannot cover everything, but I shall do my best to respond as fully as I can. For the same reason, I shall be reluctant to give way.
We have discussed training a lot, but nobody today has argued that it is not important. However, some Members have challenged the Government's chosen methods. The new Training Commission will reflect the fact that the training provided for employed and unemployed alike is about the skills required by employers. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East emphasised that employers retain the primary responsibility for the training of their employees and, in their own way, the Opposition appear to support that point.
When Opposition Members criticise training schemes as being Mickey Mouse schemes, time fillers and so on, they presumably mean that they are not sufficiently directed to employers' demands for skills—the real requirements of those who create the jobs—and that is the reason for the changes in the Training Commission.
There is not a new power in the Bill to pay training allowances, with the exception of the bridging allowance. Hon. Members have mentioned today and yesterday the Government's proposal—recommended by Beveridge in 1942—to stop paying benefits to 16 and 17-year-olds who do not stay at school or college, take up a job or a guaranteed YTS place. The bridging allowance and the provision of the Social Security Bill for 16 and 17-yearolds should not be confused with clause 26 which applies to those over 18. The clause restates the power for benefit sanctions to be imposed on people who unreasonably refuse the offer of an approved training place. It brings the treatment of training in line with employment, but I emphasise that it is not a new power. The power exists under section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975. Therefore, there should be no confusion in the Liberal party, or in what used to be referred to as the alliance.
The Liberal amendment supports the industrial relations part of the Bill, although the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was more choosy in his support. The amendment suggests that the House should decline to give the Bill a Second Reading because it
seeks to disqualify those who refuse to take part in an approved training scheme from receiving unemployment benefit.
As I explained, this is not a novelty. The withdrawal of benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds who refuse YTS is a novelty and is not in this Bill, but it was in yesterday's Bill. If Liberal Members are worried about it, they should have tabled an amendment to yesterday's Bill, although they voted against it. If, on the other hand, they are against the power affecting those over 18, they should have thought of that in 1975, or earlier.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) asked me to comment on the effect of yesterday's Bill on the so-called 21-hour rule under which someone has to be available for work and give up benefits and studying if offered a job. In future, 16 and 17-yearolds who have left school and not found a job are guaranteed a place on YTS. We consider that they should be treated no differently from other youngsters. Income


support will continue for those who cannot take a YTS place because of physical handicap or family situation, but it is not intended as an educational maintenance grant.

Ms. Clare Short: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that some youth training schemes are good and some are not so good. At present young people have the option of YTS, a job—if they are lucky—or supplementary benefit and studying for academic qualifications which lead to real jobs and skills. What the right hon. Gentleman said tonight means that the latter option is closed. He should admit it because poor YTS compared with City and Guilds, real skills and O and A-levels is not good enough. The Bill takes away that choice from industrious young people who want to increase their qualifications and life opportunities.

Mr. Cope: I have explained the position as clearly as I can. The hon. Lady knows that YTS leads increasingly to qualifications or a step towards qualifications.
Part I deals with industrial relations. We have heard the expected complaint that all this is union bashing, and that other countries' unions do not have such legislation. Indeed, we have heard the prediction that international opinion will condemn it. These assertions are well worn, but they are wrong. The claim that other countries do not have comparable legislation does not stand up to serious scrutiny. The people of this country want us to devise our own law and not to copy others. The fact is that a number of our major competitors, including France, West Germany and Italy, long ago rejected the closed shop as this Bill does and as other developed countries have done.
We have also heard tonight comparisons with company law. Some Opposition Members appear to think that it would be a good idea if trade union law was a little more comparable with company law. If that is what they really want, they should remember that company law involved Department of Trade and Industry inspectors, inquiries, penal clauses, massive fines and imprisonment, disqualification and compulsory winding-up. I would be interested to hear whether that is really the sort of law that the Opposition want for trade unions.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) made an entertaining speech, although it was marred by personal abuse of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Young. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the spending of taxpayers' money on a trade union commissioner, and contrasted it with spending on health and safety. In fact, expenditure on the commissioner is expected to be just over £1 million, while only today we have increased expenditure on health and safety at work of several times that amount. Indeed, we spend more than £100 million a year in that way.
The right hon. Gentleman's contribution had beguiling features and one almost forgot that he was the author of the closed shop legislation that was so tight that it led to this country being held to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the Bill's proposals on the closed shop, no employer will be prevented from hiring someone who does not belong to a union, or to the right union. Similarly, there will be no immunity for any strike that is intended to pressurise an employer into treating someone less favourably because he does not belong to a union, or to the right union—

Mr. Loyden: rose—

Mr. Cope: I am not giving way. I can summarise—

Mr. Loyden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Cope: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was given a clear run by the House, and I ask for the same.
Under existing legislation—

Mr. Loyden: rose—

Mr. Cope: No.

Mr. Loyden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not persist; he knows the rules.

Mr. Cope: Under existing legislation—

Mr. Loyden: rose—

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Cope: No, I will not give way. Under existing legislation no one can be—

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Loyden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Cope: Under existing legislation, no one can be fairly dismissed for being a member of a trade union. I n future, no one can be fairly dismissed for not belonging—

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Loyden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell both Liverpool Members that they well know the rules of this place and that they must not persist if the Minister clearly is not giving way.

Mr. Cope: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) appeared to have misunderstood clause 16. He thought that it would be necessary for a union to win both nationally and locally to obtain immunity for a strike. In fact, there is no proposal to change the law when a ballot on industrial action is confined to a single workplace or where it involves all the members of a union. In respect of a particular employer's work force, the clause comes into effect when two or more workplaces are being balloted and not all union members in the same occupational group or grade are being balloted. Where the ballot is selective in this way, separate workplace ballots will have to be held. That will prevent the votes of one workplace from being swamped by those of another.
Clauses 3 to 5, the so-called disciplinary clauses. have attracted much attention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised that I would tell the House about the representations that we received following the Green Paper. Of the employers and employers' organisations that commented on the proposals, 10 were against and six were in favour. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mentioned the closed shop provisions. On that point 13 employers or employers' organisations were in favour and two were against.
Much has been made of the CBI and its views. I shall remind the House of what one of its officials said in a letter to The Times. He said:


Amongst our membership there was a strong recognition that an individual should be free to honour his contract of employment without fear of coercion from any source.
As the House is aware, I was a member of the silent service—the Whips' Office—which is the only group of MPs who consistently listen.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Cope: I was a member of the silent service, which is why I want my say now. I was a member of that office from April 1979 until this summer. As a result, almost the last speech that I made in the House concerned industrial relations law. In what proved to be the last weeks of the Labour Government—February 1979—I introduced a ten-minute Bill to check the abuse of picketing. I am glad to say that, with the vote of one Labour Member, I won the vote, although the Bill did not get anywhere.
We all remember how violent mass picketing was used—some have tried to use it since—to stop people working during strikes. With the overwhelming support of the country, I hope that all hon. Members believe that individuals should not be intimidated into striking against their will.
These clauses are part of the same protection of an individual's right to choose whether to strike, to work on or to return to work during a strike. The decision to strike is of the greatest importance and it can have many individual and collective consequences. Some hon. Members have said that they regard this provision as being undemocratic and that it might make unions less inclined to have strike ballots or individuals less inclined to vote, but I doubt it. A strike ballot will remain important to unions and individuals alike. The clause will make unions ensure that they have their members' support at all times, not only in the particular circumstances of a ballot.
We have been told that the provision will make the law unbalanced, yet it remedies an imbalance. The law already provides unions with the right to induce a strike and remain immune from the legal consequences that would otherwise follow, but it should also provide the individual with the right not to strike and remain immune from the consequences that the union may inflict. A man or woman should have the right to strike, the right to work on and the right to stick by his or her contract of employment, insofar as it lies within our power to guarantee that right. That is what the clause does, and it is right to do it.

Mr. Loyden: rose—

Mr. Cope: I went to the TUC conference at Blackpool and listened to the searching debates about the movement's future. I cannot predict what that future will be, but I know who will decide it—the members of the unions themselves.
The Bill strengthens the rights and influence of ordinary union members. It does things that they and the public want to be done. It draws on the best practice of unions to give them all a greater spur to put things right. Unions should welcome the Bill, and I hope that the House will also welcome it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 233.

Division No. 39]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Alison, Rt Hon Michael


Alexander, Richard
Allason, Rupert





Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Amos, Alan
Emery, Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evennett, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Farr, Sir John


Atkins, Robert
Favell, Tony


Atkinson, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baldry, Tony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Franks, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Freeman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
French, Douglas


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gale, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gardiner, George


Body, Sir Richard
Gill, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boswell, Tim
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gorst, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gregory, Conal


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grist, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Ground, Patrick


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Grylls, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Chris
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, John


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Christopher


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heddle, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hill, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hind, Kenneth


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Curry, David
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Irvine, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Irving, Charles


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jack, Michael


Dover, Den
Jackson, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Janman, Timothy


Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby






Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Price, Sir David


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Raffan, Keith


Key, Robert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rathbone, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Redwood, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Renton, Tim


Knapman, Roger
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Riddick, Graham


Knowles, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Latham, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rost, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rowe, Andrew


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lightbown, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lilley, Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mans, Keith
Steen, Anthony


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stevens, Lewis


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maude, Hon Francis
Sumberg, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Summerson, Hugo


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Miller, Hal
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thorne, Neil


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mudd, David
Tredinnick, David


Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Walden, George


Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Wcester)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Warren, Kenneth


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wheeler, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Portillo, Michael
Widdecombe, Miss Ann





Wiggin, Jerry
Woodcock, Mike


Wilkinson, John
Yeo, Tim


Wilshire, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Winterton, Mrs Ann



Winterton, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Wood, Timothy





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Faulds, Andrew


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fearn, Ronald


Allen, Graham
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Alton, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Anderson, Donald
Fisher, Mark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Flynn, Paul


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Barron, Kevin
Galbraith, Samuel


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Beckett, Margaret
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beith, A. J.
George, Bruce


Bell, Stuart
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bermingham, Gerald
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Bidwell, Sydney
Gould, Bryan


Blair, Tony
Graham, Thomas


Blunkett, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Haynes, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.


Buckley, George
Henderson, Douglas


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Holland, Stuart


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hood, James


Canavan, Dennis
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cartwright, John
Howells, Geraint


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoyle, Doug


Clay, Bob
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Illsley, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Ingram, Adam


Cousins, Jim
John, Brynmor


Cox, Tom
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Crowther, Stan
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cummings, J.
Kennedy, Charles


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kilfedder, James


Cunningham, Dr John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David


Darling, Alastair
Lamond, James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Leighton, Ron


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Doran, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Douglas, Dick
Livsey, Richard


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunnachie, James
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie


Eadie, Alexander
McAllion, John


Eastham, Ken
McAvoy, Tom


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McCartney, Ian


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Macdonald, Calum


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McFall, John


Fatchett, Derek
McKay, Allen (Penistone)






McKelvey, William
Robinson, Geoffrey


McLeish, Henry
Rogers, Allan


Maclennan, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McTaggart, Bob
Rowlands, Ted


McWilliam, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Marek, Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Short, Clare


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Snape, Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Soley, Clive


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerald


Morgan, Rhodri
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliott
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mullin, Chris
Turner, Dennis


Murphy, Paul
Vaz, Keith


Nellist, Dave
Wall, Pat


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wallace, James


O'Brien, William
Walley, Ms Joan


O'Neill, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wareing, Robert N.


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Pike, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Prescott, John
Wilson, Brian


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Winnick, David


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Radice, Giles
Worthington, Anthony


Randall, Stuart
Wray, James


Redmond, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn



Reid, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Richardson, Ms Jo
Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Tony Banks.


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Robertson, George

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — Employment Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Employment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any sums payable by the Secretary of State to or in respect of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: The money resolution should not go through on the nod. We should point out that the £3 million that the Bill will cost could be put to much more important uses. For example—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not taking part in the debate on the money resolution kindly leave the Chamber quietly?

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection. I assure you that when roles are reversed I shall, as always, support you as you apply the Standing Orders of the House.
In June this year the estimated cost of outstanding repairs to schools in my constituency—repairs needed to make them wind and watertight — was just over £3 million. I have identified immediately an expenditure priority far superior to this mean and tatty little Bill, which attacks our organised work force. It attacks the most economically disadvantaged in our society—people who struggle from week to week to make ends meet and who organise themselves in trade unions so that they are just equal to the power of organised capital.
The Government always claim that trade unions cause days to be lost through strike action. The truth—the Government should know this because they have an army of civil servants ready to dig out the information—is that in any average year more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action. Let me give the figures. In 1980 we lost just over 11 million days through industrial stoppages, but we lost 13·1 million days through industrial injury. In 1981 we lost 4 million days through industrial stoppages, and 10·9 million through industrial injury.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman making a frustrated Second Reading speech, or a speech on the money resolution?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The money resolution is fairly wide, but I hope that I shall hear a little more about money from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for indicating that you will listen, which is more than Conservative Members intend to do. Obviously I shall have to spell my point out in detail so that the 45 minutes allowed are taken up with my explanation.
I am talking about the alternatives on which the £3 million could be spent. On Second Reading the Government claimed that trade unions, by their industrial action, caused many lost days in industry. Before I was foolishly interrupted by an hon. Member, who I assume


is part of the goose-stepping tendency of the Conservative party, I was saying that, in 1981, 4 million days were lost through strike action, but 10·9 million days were lost through industrial injury. In 1982, 5 million days were lost in strike action, and 10·8 million days were lost through industrial injury. In 1983, 3·7 million days were lost in industrial stoppages, and 9·5 million days were lost through industrial injury.
The clear priority for any Government with a decent set of priorities — not the priorities that featured in Germany before 1939, when there was a vicious attack on the trade union movement—is to increase expenditure on health and safety at work inspectors, not on a commissioner for trade union protection. Since 1979 the number of health and safety inspectors has plummeted. There are not enough personnel to carry out as many inspections in factories and in service industries as they should. That is why more people are losing life and limb in British manufacturing and service industries than is reasonable. That shows the rotten priorities of this rotten Government.
The £3 million would be better spent on a commission of inquiry into the City. Such an inquiry might be expensive—

Mr. David Ashby: Throwing good money after bad.

Mr. Cryer: As the hon. Gentleman said, it would be throwing good money after bad. Conservative Members frequently say that trade unions have immunity; that they can take industrial action and are free from actions in tort. They claim that we need such legislation because of that immunity. I remind the House of what happened when the Government's friends from Lloyd's came here in 1980. Many hon. Members at the time—there are still some—were lining their pockets from Lloyd's insurance, and when their chums came up from Lloyd's and asked for complete immunity from civil action for the Council of Lloyd's their hypocritical reaction was not to say that immunities were serious matters for anybody, but to say, "We will pass the legislation", and all the Ministers went into the Lobby to vote for immunity for the Council of Lloyd's. It was claimed that the legislation was necessary so that Lloyd's could conduct its affairs properly, but since that Bill became an Act those greedy people in the City have been rocked by scandal after scandal. There is a fair case for spending the £3 million on an inquiry. The Tories could then look at the damage that they did five or six years ago to try to discover where they went wrong.
The commissioner for trade union rights will cost £1·2 million. Yes, there is a drop in the number of health and safety at work inspectors in both the specific and general categories, but £1·2 million will be spent on so-called commissioner for trade union rights. That commissioner will be the Government's puppet and will be used to attack the trade union movement. Why not spend the money on wages council inspectors, for example, to make sure that all those who donate so lavishly to the Tory party employ people at decent wage levels and to give the poorest earners in our society some protection? That would be a better priority for the Government.
Hon. Members will be keen to know that expenditure of £1·5 million is allowed for in the first year by the Bill. Disraeli described the Tory party as a party of organised hyprocrisy. Nothing demonstrates that better than this

legislation, because when the Tories talk about secret postal ballots, they are not worried about democracy. The Tory party has never worried about democracy—witness its own example. Who elected the new chairman of the Tory party, a new Mr. Nobody? Nobody elected him. He was appointed by her who will be obeyed.
If Tory Members are so concerned about postal ballots, why did they not set the nation an example, as some Tory Members would have liked? The truth is—I know that that will come as a shocking revelation to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that postal ballots are designed to allow their chums, the handful of people who own this country's press, to get their dirty hands on the so-called democratic processes of the trade union movement. I mean the Rupert Murdochs of this world.
Conservative Members subscribe to some sort of supervisory legislation when it comes to their elections. None of them have put forward proposals to remove the legislation that covers radio and television and allocates a fair amount of time to all the candidates at a general election. That is a legal requirement and it is reasonably scrupulously carried out. I have not heard any Tory Member object to that procedure. However, when it comes to trade unionists, the Government want unscrupulous rogues such as Rupert Murdoch to be able to give double-page spreads for the candidates of their choice, but double-page spreads attacking trade unionism with a viciousness, inaccuracy and unscrupulousness that would have made Goebbels blush. That is the gutter out of which The Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the other 'Tory papers spread their filth when they get involved in trade union manipulations. All this is about getting those newspapers through the letter-boxes.
Instead of engaging, as we do, in debate and discussion here in Parliament and then making a judgment—that is a fair form of democracy — if the principle that the Government support in this rotten little measure were carried into effect with Parliament, we would not need to bother coming at all. That may not be too much of a blow to some hon. Members. We could simply have postal ballots on all the legislation. They could be sent through the post to our homes and The Sun, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail could be allowed to provide all the background information. The Library could he closed down. Why have access to factual information? What nonsense it is.
There would be some degree of veracity in the protestations about democracy from the Conservative Benches if, at the same time as they were talking about postal ballots, they introduced legislation to say that in every paper there should be an equal division of space between all the candidates. Indeed, one Tory Member suggested that there should be funds available to enable candidates to distribute election material. Who would finance that? It is not included in the £3 million allocated for this legislation.
There should be some legislation to make funds available to ensure that there is a commissioner to prevent newspapers from giving distorted and biased presentations of one candidate against another. If there were funds available to enable a commissioner to ensure that material was sent out in equal balance for all candidates in a trade union ballot, there might be a case for the Government's argument. However, that would still not equate with the democratic discussion and informed, objective examination of the merits of a candidate that occurs during a


general election. The Tories do not want the rules that apply to radio and television, both BBC and ITV, to apply to the press. That would mean a balanced and fair press, and we do not have such a press. The present system works in the Tories' favour, and they want to see the massive degree of prejudice against Labour continue.
By and large, the money could be used for far better purposes. I hope that, in Committee, the Government will recognise that some amendment is needed on the lines that I have suggested so that more money can be spent on health and safety. At present a forensic lottery confronts so many workers when they receive injuries. Indeed, I have already pointed out to the Minister that thousands of workers receive such injuries each year.
The Minister could do a service to the nation by restoring the statistics of people injured for three days or more and therefore off work for that period. In 1984 those statistics, by virtue of the ending of the industrial injury benefit, were lost. We do not know whether, there is a cluster of injuries near—let us pluck something out of the air — nuclear power stations or civil engineering works. Until 1984 we automatically had such statistics. It is outrageous that those vital statistics are now denied the nation, thus preventing remedial action from being taken to stop the drain of life and limb that takes place, week in, week out, in our factories, shops, offices, railway premises and so forth.
I hope that the Minister will take note of my remarks—it is a vain hope. However, my speech demonstrates

that there are more important priorities at hand and that we on the Labour Benches are pressing for them and will continue to do so.

The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope): In some ways it is reassuring to find that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) did not lose his touch during his absence from the House. I was concerned that the European Parliament might have affected him, but I need not have worried.
The hon. Gentleman has advanced a number of alternative uses for the money that is the subject of the resolution, but we think that as the House has given a Second Reading to the Bill we should also vote the money to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Employment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any sums payable by the Secretary of State to or in respect of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members; and
(b) Any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.

EMPLOYMENT BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Resolved.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Employment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision for the manner in which payments made in pursuance of arrangements under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 are to be treated for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts.—[Mr. Cope.]

Orders of the Day — Data Protection

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I beg to move,
That the draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.
It will, I hope, be for the convenience of the House if we take also the other three orders, Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That the draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.
That the draft Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.
That the draft Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): If the House agrees, so be it.

Mr. Renton: Before I come to the substance of the orders, it may be helpful to hon. Members if I say a few words about the background to the Data Protection Act 1984 and report on progress in its implementation.
The Act arose directly from our signature of the Council of Europe convention for the protection of individuals with regard to the automatic processing of personal data. Both data users, that is to say, those who hold and process personal data on computers, and data subjects, the individuals to whom the data relate, had a strong interest in seeing the enactment of domestic legislation in accordance with the convention. The data users were concerned that without legislation the United Kingdom would not be able to ratify the convention with the result that this country would be excluded from future international data flows, to the detriment of the business community here. To give an example, had the United Kingdom not decided to ratify the convention, multinational companies and other companies with international interests would not have been able to transfer personal data freely into the United Kingdom from other countries which had ratified; and if, as a result, certain personal data were no longer held in the United Kingdom, data subjects here would have had no right of access under United Kingdom law. Data subjects for their part were equally keen to have a statutory right of access to the data held about them, as the convention envisaged.
As some hon. Members will recall, the Data Protection Act was keenly debated in this House and in another place in the course of its parliamentary passage in 1983–84, and was subject to extensive discussion in Committee; there were no fewer than 25 Committee sittings. The legislation was duly enacted in July 1984 and an appointed day of 11 November 1985 was set. The newly created post of Data Protection Registrar was filled by Mr. Eric Howe, to whose work in implementing the Act I should like to pay warm tribute tonight. The registrar is independent of the Executive and reports directly to Parliament. His third report was presented to Parliament and published last July.
It was originally estimated that some 300,000 registrations of data users could be expected, and there has been concern in some quarters at what is seen as the

serious problem of non-registration. I understand, however, that the position is not as unsatisfactory as has been made out. Research by the registrar now suggests that there are between 200,000 and 250,000 systems liable to registration, and so far the number of registrations stands at about 145,000.
I do not want to be complacent about this, and there is still obviously some way to go before we can be satisfied that the registration requirements are being properly met, but I would point out that our experience compares favourably with that of other countries. France, for example, after nine years of operation of its legislation has approximately 150,000 registrations from a pool similar in size to our own. A recent survey of registration in Austria, Norway and Sweden found that we had achieved a record number of registrations during our initial registration period as compared with these other countries.
The Government are conscious that the benefits conferred by the Act on data subjects are achieved to a large extent by requiring data users to take on additional responsibilities, including, in particular, registration and the grant of subject access, which have significant implications for them. That is inevitably a particular problem of small businesses. In an endeavour to relieve some of the burdens on such businesses, whose use of personal data bring them within the scope of the Act, the registrar has currently introduced and widely distributed a new simplified registration form, which is obtainable from Crown post offices. In just a month since the new form was made available, some 5,000 new applications for registration have been received. In addition, some 1,200 applications per month continue to be submitted using the old form. I am hopeful therefore, that the shortfall in expected registrations will before long be considerably reduced.
The registrar is investigating those whom he considers should have registered, but have not done so, and is ready to offer assistance and advice to those who are uncertain whether they are required to register. There is the ultimate sanction of prosecution for those who deliberately refuse to register, but I understand from the registrar that, in his view, the number of such prosecutions is likely to be small. There is certainly no intention of prosecuting people who are simply unaware of their liability to register.
The registrar is seeking to publicise the Act through advertisements in the media and professional journals. He has also published a series of guideline booklets, which explain the provisions of the Act in simple terms—not, I might add, an easy task. I understand that these booklets are in heavy demand. The registrar has also been active in promoting the publication of codes of practice relating to various sectors of data users, including, for example, the direct mail industry, travel agents, universities and polytechnics. Later this month, he is to undertake an advertising campain to inform the general public about the new right of subject access.
Subject access under the Act becomes available from 11 November. That important date marks the final stage of implementation of the Act. With its provisions fully in place, we shall be in a position to ratify the European Convention on 1 December, and we have already deposited our instrument of ratification with the Council of Europe.
After that brief sketch of the background, I turn to the orders before us, which, if they are to proceed, require affirmative resolution of both Houses. In describing to the


House the provisions of the orders, I hope I may be forgiven if I do not use their full titles, but refer to them more shortly as the health order, the social work order, the financial services order and the exemptions order. That will save a little time, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) will agree.
All the orders modify in various ways the operation of the subject access provisions of the Act. Some hon. Members may wonder whether that is not a sort of backdoor method of limiting the right of access granted by the Act. I assure the House that that is by no means so. The Act recognises a number of exceptions to the subject access provisions, in relation, for example, to data held for the purposes of prevention or detection of crime, apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or assessment or collection of tax or duty. It also makes provision in relation to health and social work and financial services data for the Secretary of State, by order, to provide exemptions from subject access, or to modify the application of the subject access provisions in specified ways; and to prevent subject access to information which is protected from disclosure under other enactments. The areas covered by the four orders that we are considering are all, therefore, areas in which Parliament specifically envisaged that unfettered subject access would be neither practicable nor desirable.
I shall now say briefly what each of the orders is intended to achieve, beginning with the health order.
Section 29(1) of the Data Protection Act allows the Secretary of State to exempt from the subject access provisions personal data consisting of information on the physical or mental health of the data subject which is held by, or was recorded by or on behalf of, a health professional; or to modify the provisions in relation to such data.
The health order allows access to data relating to the physical or mental health of the data subject to be modified to enable a data user to withhold data that is likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the data subject, and data which would lead to the identification of another individual other than a health professional who has been involved in the care of the data subject. The general assumption is that data subjects will be provided in most cases with access to personal health information held about them on computers. Information will be withheld only on the advice of a health professional that the data subject could be seriously harmed by the information, or that the information would enable the data subject to identify another individual.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I should like to ask a specific question which I think is implicit in the health order about which the Minister is speaking. What is the position if I ask my local health authority to let me see my computerised health record and the computer user, the health board, then seeks advice from my general practitioner about whether it is safe to allow that information to be transmitted to me without causing serious harm and injury? If my general practitioner is dilatory beyond 40 days about supplying consent to the computer operator to provide that information, does it follow that I will be given after that 40-day period unfettered access to that information?

Mr. Renton: To find the answer to his question the hon. Gentleman should look not at the health order about which I am speaking, but at the next one, the social work order. I refer him to article 4(3) and (4) in which he will find the answer to his question about whether under the circumstances that he postulates he would have access to the computer data.

Mr. David Ashby: Perhaps my hon. Friend could explain the specific point about computer records disclosing the identity of someone else. For example, if an instrument was left inside me by some incompetent doctor—and I accept that doctors are seldom incompetent—as often happens in this sort of litigation, there would be a great clamour because I knew nothing about the instrument. Could that be grounds for refusing to disclose the data information? What about the general practitioner involved? Would there be any appeal against his refusal?

Mr. Renton: The fact that a scalpel has been left inside my hon. Friend must first be registered on a computer before the orders that we are debating can become relevant. Secondly, the intrinsic point in these orders is that the information would be withheld only if it were thought that, by virtue of being told that he had a scalpel inside him, my hon. Friend would be likely to suffer a heart attack. As I understand the orders, under these circumstances it would be relevant to withhold the information.
Perhaps I could refer again to the question asked by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and give him a little more information. It is clear under the orders, and particularly the social work order, that generally the health authority will not seek the views of the general practitioner, but only the views of its own consultants. Perhaps that gives added emphasis to the rather detailed question that the hon. Gentleman posed. Perhaps I could return to the first order. Its terms make it clear that only information that satisfies the criteria that I have mentioned—this goes back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby)—may be withheld, and data users will be otherwise obliged to supply as much information as can be supplied without causing serious harm to the data subject or enabling the identity of another individual to be disclosed or deduced. In those circumstances, where information is withheld the data subject will not be informed that information has been withheld since to do so could cause even more harm than would be caused by access to the information itself. Professional counselling may help to ensure that as little information as possible is withheld in line with the policy of the 1984 Act, which is concerned essentially with allowing, rather than withholding, access.
The second of these orders, the social work order, deals with data held for or acquired in the course of social work and modifies the subject access provisions in their operation in this area. Article 3 of the order specifies the data concerned broadly as those held or acquired for social work functions by Government Departments, local authorities and other specified bodies, including designated voluntary organisations of which the NSPCC and its Scottish equivalent are so far the only ones to have applied for designation.
The order does not apply to the subject's health data, to which the health order applies; that is to say to data held


by, or consisting of information first recorded by, a health professional. The subject access provisions are modified to the extent that the requirement to supply information is disapplied when to do so would he likely to prejudice the carrying out of social work in that there was a real risk that serious harm would be caused to the physical or mental health or emotional condition of the data subject or any other person, or that the identity of another individual who had supplied the information would be disclosed or could be deduced, unless he had consented, or was himself a social work professional. The order makes it clear that as much as possible of the information should be disclosed as long as it does not prejudice the purpose for which it was obtained, which in general terms is to the benefit of the data subject.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Renton: With great respect to my hon. Friend, it will be for the convenience of the House if I move on. No doubt my hon. Friend will make his own contribution to the debate if he so wishes.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Renton: No, I have already said that I want to move on. I will move to the financial services order and I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his contribution later.
The third order is the financial services order. This is made under powers in section 30(2) of the 1984 Act, and designates certain functions conferred by or under a statute relating to, among other things, the regulation of financial services. Data held for the purpose of discharging these functions are exempt from the subject access provisions of the Act in cases where the performance of those functions would be jeopardised by their application.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, it was recognised when the Act was passed that special provision had to be made to restrict access of individuals to data concerning them held in connection with the regulation of financial services, which might, for example, include information about suspected malpractice. If an individual were to use his rights of access under the Act to find out what information about him was held by the regulators, he could conceivably attempt to cover his tracks and make the conclusive uncovering of his malpractice more difficult. We have had to strike a balance here between the rights of the individual and the need in some circumstances for confidentiality, and we have thought it right to recognise the special responsibilities of the regulatory bodies in this area for identifying and taking action against financial wrongdoing. The House may like to know that a provision was inserted in the Financial Services Act 1986 to make it clear that self-regulating organisations and recognised professional bodies could be designated under the Data Protection Act in order that they might be exempted from subject access in respect of some of their data, as the present order provides.
The last of the four orders is the exemption order, made under powers in section 34(2) of the Act. This exempts from the subject access provisions of the Act any personal data consisting of information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted by the enactments and instruments listed in the schedule.
In each of those cases the Government consider that the statutory prohibition, or restriction on the disclosure of

the information of which the data consist ought to prevail over the subject access provisions in the interests of data subjects or other individuals.
An example of where the interests of another individual ought properly to be taken into account would be adoption proceedings, where the interests of the natural parents are relevant as well as those of the adopted child.
The provisions listed in the order prohibit or restrict the disclosure of information relating to three broad areas—adoption records and reports used in adoption proceedings or kept in the possession of adoption societies and local authorities; statements and records of the special educational needs of children; and, in Scotland, information provided by reporters at children's hearings.
I should at this point refer to an issue which has been raised on this order by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Committee has taken the view that there is a doubt about the vires of the second entry in part III of the schedule to the draft order, in that it refers to an Order-in-Council which I am informed is shortly to be laid before Parliament reforming the law in Northern Ireland concerning adoption, and which will bring that law into line with that in England under the Adoption Act 1976. It would obviously be inconvenient to have to lay another draft exemption order before the House after the Northern Ireland order has been made, which is why we sought to cover the point in this way.
I accept that the Committee's objection is arguable, although the point was carefully considered when the order was being drafted and the view was taken that, on balance, this drafting device was both intra vires and perfectly proper.
Nevertheless, as the Committee has expressed a doubt about it, I shall consider whether I should take a suitable opportunity of bringing forward another draft order to clear the point up when the Northern Ireland adoption order has been made.
In commending these orders to the House, I would say in conclusion that they have all been the subject of detailed and lengthy consultations between my Department and the other Departments in Whitehall primarily concerned with the subject matter; and they in turn have consulted widely among the relevant professional bodies and other groups outside Whitehall. The results of those consultations were carefully thought through before the orders were finalised and laid before the House. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Data Protection Registrar has also been consulted.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The problem with the orders is that they compound what we consider to be the inadequacies of the Data Protection Act 1984; and that was the minimum that the Government needed to do to comply with the European convention that the Minister mentioned. It was far removed—nobody in their wildest dreams could accuse the Government of having this thought in their head—from any thoughts about a full-blown freedom of information Act designed to open doors and rip them from their hinges to let more daylight into our democracy.
We are a nation still consumed with secrecy. It is a national passion by those who govern. Who was it who said that something is secret because it is in a file marked "Secret"? That, in one sentence, is the whole issue.
We make and keep secret material affecting the everyday lives of individuals which should in no way be secret. Information is power and those with power—not just Government Departments, but the police, local authorities, health authorities and the rest — have amassed literally miles and miles of information about individuals.
If all that made it easier for us to sleep more safely in our beds, there might be some value in it, but it does not. It has to do with the still strongly held belief, especially under the Government, that Whitehall, and, in some areas, the town hall, know better than the rest of us and that we, poor dears, should not know what is being said about us behind our backs. These are not simply matters of passing interest; they can and do affect the judgments taken about people and make a real impact on their lives.
The Data Protection Act gave a general right to individuals to have a copy of information held on computer about him or her and a right to challenge information believed to be wrong and to have it corrected or erased. In essence, the orders contain that right and keep whole areas of computer records from individuals. We are not simply talking about factual records — someone's date of birth, address, height, or colour of eyes. The records covered by the orders are judgmental — people in the professions making judgments about the attitude, behaviour, and mental and physical condition of the individual concerned. The health and social work orders are examples of that.
I thought that it was generally agreed that part of the process of professionals effectively assisting the overcoming of problems was to share all available information. That work must be a partnership or it will not succeed. Even the contact of Members of Parliament with social workers is sufficient to show that changes in behaviour and attitude cannot be imposed by a professional; they are achieved in partnership between a client or patient and the professional concerned. If the information is not shared, if one party withholds information, there will not be trust and confidence, and progress will be the harder, if not impossible, to achieve. That must be especially true in the treatment of physical and mental health, yet the health order proposes to refuse access to information if its release
would be likely to cause serious harm".
I accept that there is some need for consideration of that factor, but not in the blanket manner proposed in the order. It is suggested that a doctor or dentist whose patient is the subject of information should be asked to judge whether it should be released. That is not good enough. We must guard against the likelihood, however extreme or rare it might be, that in certain circumstances doctors and dentists will make misjudgments in the course of their work — Members of Parliament do that — and that sometimes they will take risks. Yet under the order they will be given the power to say yes or no to a request for the information to be released.
The orders will do nothing to encourage those involved to make more professional, thoughtful and objective judgments. At the end of the day they know, to put it bluntly, that under these orders they can cover their backs. That may not happen very often, but it is a real risk that the orders do not take into account.
The orders block another path. The European convention, which the Act ratified, gives the right to

correct or erase wrong information, but under the orders that right goes out of the window. It is not simply that the individual cannot see the information; he cannot see it to check whether it is inaccurate and critically touching upon him in a clinical treatment or diagnosis. As a way out, surely it would be better for a doctor or dentist not responsible for the clinical care of the patient concerned to make the decision about the release of information. In that way, the decision would be one removed and, therefore, perhaps be less partial. I hope that the Minister will at least consider that.
The Minister will know that the Royal College of Nursing has raised other objections to the health order because, in the last analysis, it shuts out of the decision whether to release information to other health professionals such as nurses, health visitors and midwives. In June, a Department of Health and Social Security circular proposed that lead health professionals be consulted, yet when the order came before the House that suggestion had been dropped. I am told that in the same circular it was suggested that doctors should refer to the manual records when considering the computer records and deciding whether they could safely be released. Manual records are not covered by the Act, which is a serious omission, but they form part of the material on Which a doctor makes a judgment on whether to release the information held on computer. I hope that the Minister will consider referring the matter to a doctor or dentist who is not responsible for the patient to whom the record refers, and that he will advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that the lead health professionals should be consulted before a decision is taken.
For how long does the restriction of the withholding of information last? An application may be made under the order and the doctor may decide that it is not safe to allow the patient to see the information. for how long will that continue—one month, three months, six months or 12 months? Would it not be better, as the Royal College of Nursing suggested, when it is felt that serious harm would arise from immediate disclosure to set a time limit of six months and then another appliation can be made?
Similar arguments apply to the social work order. It is those who are involved in making the judgments,
likely to prejudice the carrying out of social work
by causing
serious harm to … health or emotional condition",
who will decide whether that information can safely be released.
Again, I say to the Minister that that cannot be right. I can foresee a need to check or reassess some cases, however rare, but I am concerned that this provision again runs the risk of abuse and will err on the side of secrecy for its own sake. Would it not be better for a local government officer who is not directly concerned with the case to make the decision whether to release the information? The same applies to the voluntary agencies. At least it gives the promise of impartiality.
How can a social work officer who has been involved with an extremely difficult and intractable case make a clear and proper judgment on whether to release information on request? In the real world—I am sure the Minister is aware of this—it is asking too much of the worker.
Similar criticisms can be made of the miscellaneous subject access exemptions order, which relates to adoption


and special education. No judgment is required. The order simply says that data are exempted from the provisions of the main Act
in the interests of protecting the subject of the data himself or some other individual.
I agree that we should consider this matter, but I am amazed that it can be proposed by a Government who crow about the virtues of the main Act that this should be drawn so widely. How can it be suggested that such a blanket provision is needed? It does not clearly define what grounds will be taken into account. There is no facility for the individual to challenge or seek to correct or erase wrong information, and once more the professional making judgmental comments is relieved of any responsibility to have those judgments tested for truth and accuracy.
Perhaps the Minister will tell me what guidance it is proposed to issue to those concerned with adoption and social work to help them in making these judgments. Is there not some way in which consideration can be given to a third party? Can we not find a simple and straightforward way of enabling the legal representative of the individual involved to see the information and to know the grounds on which it is to be withheld?
The Minister and the House will know that the Education Act 1986 gives parents, although not pupils, the right of access to school records. Does the order which concerns special education cancel that right?
On the face of it, the order concerning financial services is slightly alarming. It exempts material under 29 Acts and three orders—in the main the newly passed Financial Services Act 1986. It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that the Opposition were unhappy about the timid, pussyfoot approach of that Act to City scandal and finding a means to deter and combat it. The order does little to dispel those concerns. It worries me that it may, yet again, send the wrong signal to the City.
I understand that, under the orders, a doctor, a dentist, a local authority or a health authority can, when asked by someone whether information about them is held on computer and whether they can have a copy of it, reply that they are not obliged under the Data Protection Act 1984 to disclose such information. On the face of it, that is a factual statement, but it is, to say the least, extremely economical with the truth. The applicant is not told whether information about him or her is held on computer. The applicant can simply be told that the authorities will not—and do not have to—say whether information about him or her is held. That is most unsatisfactory.
I should like the Minister to give an assurance that such a cover-up form of words will not be used in regard to the orders and that the holder of information will say whether information is held and give reasons why it cannot be given if, indeed, it cannot. That at least has the merit of being a more adequate explanation. Some of us were slightly aghast when we thought we heard the Minister say that, in some cases, it would be more dangerous to say that than to provide the information. If that really is the Government's approach to the orders, we might as well go home.
Section 21 of the Data Protection Act gives a person who is denied knowledge of whether personal data are held on him or her and, when a copy of such information is refused, the right to seek a court order to obtain it. The

orders make withholding information relating to social work, mental or physical illness, special education needs and adoption legal.
Will such refusals be open to challenge in the courts? I assume that they will, but that merely underlines what I have already said about the need for some informal third party assessment of whether information should be withheld in the interests of the person concerned. I believe that the courts will make even more difficult a situation that is likely to be difficult enough.
I am aware that there is a right of appeal to the registrar and that medical advisers and other professionals will be available to him. That can be helpful and certainly appears to be more user friendly than the courts, but there should be some less formal independent third party method of decision. I hope that the Minister will consider that and let me know his conclusions.
I shall not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the orders, but they remain narrow, restrictive and contrary to the demands of a growing number of people for more, and more open, access to information, which is held manually or on computer by people in positions of authority, over important parts of our lives.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Despite the statement of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that there will be no vote on the orders, should have been delighted to vote for them. I believe that we are dancing the often organised late night minuet around the Official Secrets Act. In terms of the progress of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), I hope that the orders will be approved by the House. We are facing the traditional problem of Her Majesty's Governments, whichever party is in power, of secrecy and what it is worth in terms of the protection of our citizens.
For many years I was involved in the Council of Europe studying the problems of data protection. I was chairman of its parliamentary committee on the freedom of information. Therefore, I am concerned not only about the protection of our citizens but about how we can make available that material that should be made available to our citizens.
Having listened to the debate, and, with great respect, to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, I rather felt that nobody in his Department had read the work in Sweden or the United States on these matters. I got the impression that, like all good engineers, the wheel was being invented again. I should like an assurance from the Minister that sufficient consideration has been, and will be, given not only to those laws that have been passed in those other countries that share the desire that I am sure he shares for the maximum freedom of information, but that that will be reflected in orders affecting the Data Protection Act 1984.
I should like to put some questions to my hon. Friend. I do not expect answers tonight, but I should like answers in due course, at his convenience; unlike the questions, that I asked of a Minister in a recent debate, which I am still waiting on and which I am still pursuing.
The 1984 Act states that a register is public and available in all public libraries. I hope that a copy will be made available in the Library of the House of Commons.
The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) Order 1987 refers to the serious harm to the


data subject or some other person, and I should like to know who will decide what is serious harm and for how long that serious harm will be considered to be in place.
The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 1987 provides for access to data held by health professionals. The term "health professionals" should be spelt out in detail because it covers a multitude of virtues and sins. It needs to be stated exactly who health professionals are, what qualifications they have, what rights they have to retain information, and over what period of time.
In respect of the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) Order 1987—I love that word "etc."; clearly the lawyers were paid by the inch, if not by the metre—it says who is likely to be prejudiced by the discharge of the functions, but who decides those matters? We do not want to see a great panoply of legal effects which only give prosperity to lawyers.

Mr. Ashby: And why not?

Mr. Warren: My hon. Friend asks why not. The problem with our laws at the moment is that they not only grow too fast, but that lawyers' fees grow exponentially with them. As an aside it is high time that the lawyers' fees were examined in detail, particularly why they charge so much for such limited services.
I now question the considerations that arise in the terms of the Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order. I am concerned about the problems that can arise about disclosure without authority. In that connection I should like to know to whom the information would be disclosed, and what constraints would be put on the persons to whom it was disclosed not to pass on the information?
Although I regard the orders as a movement forward in what we all want to see—the protection of data—I hope that the issue will not be clouded by the greater requirement of more openness in government.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Since elections always bring casualties, I begin by noting the absence of the remarkable former hon. Member for Oxford, East, Mr. Steve Norris. Had he been re-elected, I am sure that he would have been here. He assisted me as a sponsor of the Access to Personal Files Act 1987, as it eventually became, during the course of the private Member's Bill procedure. During that time he was a great help to me. He was a passionate advocate of freedom of information in all its various aspects. He became a great expert in the detail of matters exactly like this. I, for one, miss him greatly.
Having been through the rigours of trying to get my private Member's Bill through the Home Office, which involved various aspects straddling different Departments, I fully appreciate the difficulties facing the Minister. Indeed, the former Minister of State, Home Office did so well in handling my Bill that he was promoted to Chief Whip. I say seriously that I understand that there are technically difficult matters that are officially outwith the Minister's purlieu and they are difficult to cope with. It is against that background that I return to the question I asked during my intervention. It is a technically

complicated question but it is an important one. I gave him the wrong scent by referring to general practitioners. The Minister will know that a draft DHSS circular that was issued in June this year, alongside the draft of the health order, suggested that a data user's obligation was only to consult the health professional, not to withhold information indefinitely until a health professional gave a final decision. Therefore, where the health professional failed to reply within 40 days, which the House will know is the normal time allowed for responding to subject access requests, the data user would, in my opinion, then be obliged—that is an important word—to give access to the health data in full. If that is the case, my reading of the order is wrong. However it is an important point. People other than ourselves read these debates and it is important for the Minister to clarify that. I hope that he will now do so.

Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his indulgence on this complex matter. The straightforward answer to the specific question posed by the hon. Gentleman in his intervention is no. If the doctor is so dilatory that the 40-day period is exceeded, the data user is in breach of his obligations under section 21(6) of the Data Protection Act 1984. His recourse is the right to go to court or complain to the registrar. The health order and the other orders we are debating do not affect that right.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for the clarification, as I am sure the House will be. I regret that, but at least the debate can now continue on the basis of an accurate interpretation of the order.
I wish to make three points during the course of this important debate. My general response to the orders is that there are good aspects to them that I recognise and welcome. I congratulate the Government on resisting pressure, from some medical circles. I am glad that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security has seen fit to attend this important debate. She will know that there has been pressure from some in medical circles to seek total exemption for medical records. The Government were right to resist that pressure. At this year's British Medical Association conference motions of censure were tabled criticising the BMA council for having accepted the idea of modified access to health records rather than demanding total exemption. I am pleased to say that those motions were overwhelmingly rejected.
I welcome the fact that under the health and the social work orders the test for withholding informatiion has been changed to "serious harm". That is a stricter test than either of those proposed in the Department of Health and Social Security consultation paper. At that stage in the consultation process it was proposed that the test should be that the information would be likely to cause "actual harm" or "actual harm or distress". The test of "serious harm" now contained in the orders was the one that I proposed in the Access to Personal Files Act and I am glad that the Government have accepted that principle.
I welcome the fact that social workers' provisional judgments have not been exempted from access in the social work order. The proposal in the DHSS consultation paper would have exempted them, which would have meant that all the provisional judgments would have been withheld until after a decision based on them had been made, by which time it would have been too late. The 1983 DHSS circular on access to manual social work records


which has been followed by many authorities allows provisional judgments to be exempted. The order will lead to a more positive line than that taken by many at the moment. That, too, is welcome. I hope that the social work regulations on manual records under the Access to Personal Files Act will follow the more positive line rather than that taken in the 1983 DHSS circular.
Finally, I welcome the fact that the protection for the identities of third parties will not prohibit the disclosure of the names of doctors, social workers or other professional staff involved with the data subject. This is a lesson that seems to have been learnt from the Access to Personal Files Act which protected the identities of contributors to records except for those acting in a professional capacity. The Data Protection Act itself does not make that distinction, and without the present provisions, computer users would be obliged to suppress the names of doctors and others who had treated the patient.
My main criticism of the orders is political rather than technical. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I am disappointed that there is no access to manual records—on health in particular. The arguments that we put forward last year have been sustained and are even more important than they were then because of the overwhelming public support for such access. Over 140 national organisations, the majority of them with an interest in health records, backed the Access to Personal Files Act last year. Professional bodies—notably the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the Health Visitors Association—also backed the Act. A recent opinion poll—if evidence were required—commissioned by the Data Protection Registrar found that more than eight out of 10 people thought that the Data Protection Act should apply to manual records. That is a substantial body of public opinion. The survey showed that 86 per cent. of people thought that medical records should "always" or "usually" be available. There is overwhelming public support for access to manual health records. The distinction between manual and computer records is completely arbitrary and should not be the basis for deciding whether we have a right to safeguard ourselves against mistakes or unfair decisions. Why should our right to protect ourselves depend upon whether the organisation which holds records on us can afford a computer?
If I understand the health and social work orders correctly, I am worried that people may have no way of knowing whether information about them has been deleted before they are given access. This June, the draft DHSS circular suggested that people would get a specially written report based on the computer printout, but would not necessarily get the printout itself. There is no objection to a special report, if it is in addition to the printout, not instead of it. Indeed, it would be extremely welcome. But it is not acceptable as an alternative, and denying individuals access to the original information will generate suspicion, even in cases where people have received full information. I believe that people should be told whether information about them has been withheld so that they can, if they wish, appeal against that decision. However, it appears that they will not be told.
If that is right, doctors and social workers will have an enormous amount of freedom to withhold information, even where the serious harm test does not apply. Of course, there is anxiety about telling people that information has

been withheld, because of the risk of serious injury. Fear itself causes great distress. My solution in the Access to Personal Files Act was to allow a six-months delay rather than permanent withholding, which would allow the doctor to say, "Wait until your condition improves a little and then we will see whether we can discuss things with you." Deferred access could get over the problem created by the order.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned the fact that the prime responsibility for decisions on access should be taken only by doctors or dentists, according to my interpretation of the order, although at times it may be more appropriate for other professionals to take those decisions. The draft order that was circulated in June gave responsibility to the
health professional who is currently or was most recently responsible for the clinical care of the data subject in connection with the matters to which the information … relates.
The final order has deleted that and given prime responsibility to doctors and dentists. In rural areas and in constituencies such as mine, the categories of medical practitioner that are excluded—nurses, midwives and health visitors—are largely or solely responsible for a patient's care and are therefore accountable personally for the entries that they make on a person's record. Confining the right to disclose solely to medical practitioners would make the other health professionals inhibited about exactly what they recorded. If the order was passed unamended, information recorded by a midwife, nurse or health visitor could be passed on or withheld without their consent or even their knowledge. Such a narrow definition of "health professional" is not only unsound, it sets a worrying precedent.
I cite child abuse cases as a special worry in this area. Health visitors keep records from information obtained from parents and the child—often confidentially obtained from each other. They are generally not revealed, unless required in court cases. However, under the terms of the order, it will be possible to reveal those records outside court, perhaps without the health visitor's knowledge or consent. That raises potentially serious legal problems. I support the claim by the Royal College of Nursing that the order, insofar as it affects nurses, is very restrictive, produces complex access procedures and puts the medical and dental professions in a central position which is not entirely acceptable.
The fees that will be charged under these provisions may be prohibitive for many people, and I hope the Government will give careful consideration to that aspect. They have recently announced that the maximum fee for an application will be about £10. In fact, people may have to make multiple applications and thus have to pay several separate fees simpy to obtain the data held on them by a single computer user. May we have an assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that access is not restricted because of the fees that are charged, particularly to people on lower incomes?
I give a broad welcome to the orders, although I fear they will not achieve everything the Minister claimed for them. However, they can be regarded as a small step in the right direction, and, for what they are worth—with the single exception of the way they will impact on nurses, midwives and health visitors—I give them a cautious welcome.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Hon. Members will have welcomed the comments of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) about our former colleague, Mr. Steve Norris. We miss him and, particularly on the Conservative Benches, look forward to having him back with us soon.
I wish to draw attention to the concern felt by the Royal College of Midwives about the implications for its profession of the Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order. This subject was mentioned by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
Article 4 in effect restricts to medical and dental practitioners the ability to supply information. That at first sounds reasonable, but when one considers that it follows that a midwife will have no right of access to records held on a computer, that cannot be considered satisfactory. He or she will need the medical practitioner's consent for access to those records, and that medical practitioner could withhold them.
Midwives need access to records, which are an essential part of caring for the patient. Preventing them from having those records will make it difficult for them to keep their patients informed and involved in their own health care. They are not simply nursing assistants to doctors; they are qualified independent practitioners in their own right, and they often give total health care to their patients.
In such circumstances they are totally responsible; as independent contractors, they are booked by mothers for a complete period. The doctor gets involved, but they have total care of the client or patient. It is important, therefore, that those who are involved professionally in the care of the mother should have access to that mother's records so that they can give the best possible advice about what needs to be done.
The hon. Member for Erdington mentioned—and I am instructed on the subject—that consultations on the matter took place for a couple of years and that it was understood that the instrument would deal with this issue of access by midwives. But, suddenly, without further consultation, they have been excluded.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will table an early amending order providing that in article 4(6)(a) after the words "medical practitioner or dental practitioner" there shall be added the words "or practising midwife or midwives." I look forward to hearing that my hon. Friend agrees with this, and hope that we shall have an amendment soon.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am most grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I shall be brief.
I chair the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and I want to draw the Minister's attention—he has mentioned it — to the unanimous report of that Committee. That Committee, in common with all Committees, reflects the strength of the political parties in the House.
Article 2 of the Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order states:
There shall be exempted from the subject access provisions any personal data consisting of information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted by the enactments and instruments listed in the Schedule to this Order".

I know that the Minister is aware that the third part of the schedule relates to:
Any enactment contained in an Order in Council made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974(b) and making provisions corresponding to section 51 of the Adoption Act 1976.
The Joint Committee asked for a memorandum from the Minister's Department and that memorandum made clear that the draft Order-in-Council that the Department has in mind for this part of the schedule will:
almost certainly not be made by the time this draft Order (if approved by Parliament) is made, although it is hoped that it will be made shortly thereafter.
The question of ultra vires concerns whether the Minister has power to include in the schedule a reference to an order that in fact is not yet made. The powers that the Minister invokes to make the order do not, for example, include section 41 of the Data Protection Act 1984. It should be noted that enactment is defined in that section as including:
an enactment passed after this Act
That section is referred to in the memorandum provided by the Minister's Department, but it is not a power that is listed in the order and it is not a power that the Minister has chosen to invoke in presenting the order to the House. The Minister depends upon section 34(2) for that purpose, but it does not allow any provision to be included for an enactment that has yet to be passed.
Delegated legislation represents an extremely wide area of power for Ministers. The House recognised that and set up the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to act as a safeguard. Indeed the Joint Committee has reported specifically on this matter. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House would look askance at an order that referred to an order that has yet to be made and has not yet been considered by any component body of the House.
The Minister suggested—it is clear that he regarded it as important enough to refer to it—that he might be looking at another draft order to clear up any doubt. That is a messy proposition because it means that people must deal with two orders, and it also means another 85p to clear up an order that is, in our view, defective. I hope that the Minister shares that view.
I believe that the wisest procedure is to withdraw this order, remedy any defect and then present the corrected order to the House. I am sure that that would gain approval.

Mr. William Cash: I am a member of the Joint Committee and this matter was referred to us by our legal adviser. What the Chairman has said is absolutely accurate. I believe that it is quite an extraordinary state of affairs that we should be faced with an order that is, as the Chairman has described, patently ultra vires. I should be interested to learn what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say, and I hope that he will remedy the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for that intervention. The Minister will see that it is not my own view but the view of the Committee which reached a unanimous verdict. That Committee was established by the House to carry out the function of drawing attention to cases like this. We were legally advised; we did not produce this conclusion without the most serious advice. We think that the order


is not well laid out and that that article is ultra vires. With the Committee's report ringing in his ears I hope that the Minister will take proper account of these remarks.

Mr. William Cash: Apart from the point that I raised in the intervention, my concern arises on the Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 1987, article 2, where the definition of a health professional raises some odd matters. The schedule deals with the statutory derivation, where applicable, and includes the Medical Act 1983, the Dentists' Act 1984 the Opticians Act 1958, the Pharmacy Act 1954 and the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960, among others. It then deals with another series of categories which do not have any statutory derivation. Nowhere is there any recognition of those who practise complementary or alternative medicine and who, by any stretch of the imagination, have to be regarded as health professionals.
Are we not living in a real world where people today, tomorrow and yesterday make use of chiropractic, acupuncture and other facilities provided by people who are not necessarily doctors or persons covered by the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act? These are the facts of life which are not even remotely recognised under the definition of health professionals. Many thousands throughout the country and many hon. Members receive the assistance of persons who are not, under the terms of the order, described as health professionals but who on a common sense basis are health professionals.
I ask the Minister to consider that question and to give me an answer. If these people who are administering chiropractic, acupuncture, osteopathy and so on are providing advice and assistance to the general public, why are they excluded from the definition of health professionals?
I do not think I need make the case any more. Will the Minister be good enough to consider this question? The order is about the protection of the public. That means patients. There is a reference to people who are not statutorily recognised like clinical psychologists, art therapists, music therapists or
Scientist employed by such an authority or Board as a head of department".
Why does the order not include chiropractors, acupuncturists or osteopaths who are providing a sensible service for the benefit of the public?

Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall introduce my Data Protection (Amendment) Bill under the ten-minute procedure next week. That will be a substantial improvement on the Government's approach which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) rightly described as narrow and restrictive. Ironically the Data Protection Act has proved not only unwieldy to business but has also given widespread exemptions, particularly in the public sector, denying individuals access to their own records. There should be fewer exemptions and wider and simpler rights of access for individuals to computer records held on them. That is for next week.
I want to raise several points about the order dealing with financial services. First, why has it taken the Government so long to produce the order? How can Parliament be expected to inspect in such a short time the

implications of probably over 200 functions relating to 30 Acts? How can Parliament be satisfied that the order does not take away data subject rights? Why cannot the order at least expire in, say, one year's time and then be reintroduced? That would give us some time to see how it works in practice.
Secondly, section 28 of the Data Protection Act allows subject access exemption for the purpose of the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders and the assessment or collection of any tax or duty. That is a pretty substantial exemption. Consequently, the order must cover other exemptions of personal data held for different purposes. Some of those purposes may be sensible; but why should all such personal data be exempt so that the subject cannot gain access to them? It seems unnecessary.
Everyone would favour the aim of ensuring that only honest financial operators are in positions of trust. I do not believe, however, that wide exemptions are the best way to achieve that aim. The Government have put no test into the order of whether subject access would prejudice or cause serious harm to the function being carried out by the financial regulatory body. It merely states that personal data concerned, however vaguely, with that function may be exempt. How can the accuracy of personal data be checked if the data subject has no access? There should be safeguards, particularly if accusations are made that inaccurate personal data have been put on file maliciously.
The Minister said that the data registrar had been consulted, but he did not say what the registrar said. He may well have been critical, and I think that hon. Members should know whether he was, and, if so, what his criticisms were.
In the case of the health and social work order, there is again a shortage of time in which to implement complex measures. Local authorities and health authorities have only about 10 days for the purpose, although the Government have had two years to produce the orders.
Hon. Members have referred to the provision in regulation 4(5) of the order about the most appropriate health professional. Let me quote from a letter sent to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) by Mr. Bernard J. B. Kat, who was on the inter-professional working group on access to personal health information. He writes:
We see no good reason why the rights of access introduced by the Data Protection Act should not extend to health records but we need the opportunity to bring about that change in practice.
He also goes into the definition of a health professional in regulation 4(6), particularly the narrow definition in part 4(6) referring to a medical or dental practitioner. He says:
The health professions are generally in favour of people having access to their health records. However, some members of the medical profession, particularly hospital-based consultants, seem very determined to limit people's access to health records … Our fear is that the substitution of 'medical and dental practitioners' for 'health professionals' as the decision makers in the Order will have a significant and detrimental effect on the patients' access to their records.
He says:
presumably it was done to satisfy the sectional interests of certain hospital-based medical consultants.
The letter concludes:
It would be very regrettable if this order were to set a precedent of making access difficult rather than easy.


Those are serious allegations by a person who gave advice to the Government, and the Minister must explain why that advice was disregarded.
What happens when the medical and social work personal data reside together? There could be difficulties about who has the final say, particularly if the parties disagree. There are two possibilities in such circumstances. One is where the social work department consults the health professional. The department may say that it does not agree with the health professional's advice on the matter and may decide to release the personal data. In that case the data user, the social work department, will have the last say, but that could be a recipe for future conflict between the various professions that have to work together, and the data holder might not in future share his information with the social worker.
That is how consultation would work, but the other way in which it could work when there is disagreement is for the health professional to say, "You will not supply the information that constitutes the data." That would be not consultation but refusal of permission from the medical professional. Who will have the last word in the event of disagreement? The Minister must be clearer about that.
The consultation process will not be uniform because a health professional in Leyton may give a different decision from a health professional in Ilford about a similar case. One may grant subject access and the other may refuse to grant it. That could have serious implications. I am worried that insurance companies may force subject access and that it will become well known that medical data that will cause serious harm to the data subject will be exempt. By inference, personal data that will not cause serious harm will be available to the data subject. An insurance company may use this and say to the data subject, "Before we give you a policy, apply to your doctor for subject access and show us the results."
By definition, "serious harm" people will be poor risks and the insurance companies will have no interest in them. As "serious harm" depends on consultation with the health professional, and as that can be erratic and varied from area to area, some poor risks will be unjustifiably categorised and unfairly labelled as poor risks. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to my points in the House or by letter.

Mr. Renton: I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this short, stimulating and interesting debate. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who I regret is not in the Chamber at the moment, and the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). Although the hon. Member for Leyton has eaten into most of the time in which I had hoped to answer the questions posed in the debate, he is none the less one of the aficionados in this subject. He always speaks with great seriousness and expertise on the subject, and I am delighted that he was able to make a contribution. I certainly support the remarks made about Steve Norris, and the same must be said about Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk. They are two former hon. Members whom we miss in the House. They were great experts on personal data and data protection.
I was very disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) from

the Opposition Front Bench. It was very shortsighted. If, heaven forfend, the hon. Gentleman was ever on the Government Front Bench occupying the position that I have tonight, I believe that he would be moving the data protection modification orders in precisely the same terms and in the same detail as I did tonight. In the Data Protection Act 1984 it is recognised that there are certain areas—health records are the main area—where totally unfettered access of the individual to his computer data cannot be given, largely for the individual's sake.
To encapsulate the broad objective of the legislation, it is to provide the maximum degree of access with the minimum safeguards necessary in the public interest and in the interests of the individual. That is the spirit behind the orders.
The hon. Member for Erdington and the hon. Member for Leyton raised points about the health order. In response to them I can state that the doctor or dentist's opinion is not legally the last word. If the data subject disagrees with the withholding of access, he has the right under section 21(8) of the 1984 Act to go to court and challenge the decision or to go to the Data Protection Registrar. In response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Erdington about what guidance is to be given to social workers, I can state that guidance has already been given as follows: withholding information should be exceptional, the local authority should identify someone in senior management to decide whether information should be withheld, and the authority's lawyers should normally be consulted.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) for stating very warmly that the legislation is a movement forward. If I cannot answer all his points tonight, I shall try to answer them later or ask my colleagues at the DHSS to answer, if their expertise is appropriate.
We are well aware of developments on the Continent in relation to data protection, and the Data Protection Registrar has travelled widely. The register of data users and the purposes for which they hold information has been published and is available in main public libraries. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye also asked about the constraints on the disclosure of that data. The point is that the orders deal with access by the data subject, not disclosure to third parties. The Data Protection Act 1984 deals with disclosure by requiring data users to register in general terms people to whom they disclose data.

Mr. Warren: Will it be possible for that information to be made available in the House?

Mr. Renton: I must get on, and my hon. Friend must forgive me.
I appreciate the importance of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I have already said that I shall consider making a new order dealing with a Northern Ireland adoption order when that order has been made. I understand the point made by the Joint Committee, and I dealt with that at some length in my opening remarks. I cannot accept that the order is defective, as the entry in question will not have effect unless and until the Northern Ireland adoption order is made.
Finally, I want to confirm how strongly we feel that the Data Protection Act 1984 is an important piece of


legislation in terms of the responsibilities that it places on data users who use the automatic processing of personal information, and the protection that it gives to individuals against misuse or unauthorised disclosure of information stored about them on data systems. It will, of course, take time for the system established by the Act to become fully operative. The implementation of the Act has not been without its problems, but I believe that those are being overcome and that good progress is being made in meeting the objectives of the legislation—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.

DATA PROTECTION

Resolved,
That the draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 1987. which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.
That the draft Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.
That the draft Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.— [Mr. Alan Howarth.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,
That Mr. John Blackburn. Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. David Hunt, Mr. Charles Irving, Sir Ian Lloyd, Mr. Michael Martin, Sir Fergus Montgomery, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Barry Porter, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Robert Rhodes James, Mr. Colin Shepherd, Mr. John Wakeham, Joan Walley and Mr. Kenneth Warren, be members of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services).—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Rating Reform

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I wish to present a petition from Mr. Bill Greig of 182 Gilmerton Dykes drive, Edinburgh, Mr. Jimmy Lawrie of 25 Ferniehill place, Edinburgh, and members of the Scottish Old Age Pensioners Association, Gilmerton branch, in south Edinburgh, rightly objecting to the Government's disgraceful poll tax. They are seeking the immediate repeal of this lamentable legislation, which will penalise many senior citizens who are not among the narrow category of people who are exempt in sections 8(8) and (9) of the 1987 Act. Prisoners will not have to pay the poll tax, but pensioners will. The poll tax is unfair, undemocratic and unworkable. My constituents sincerely request that the Government act immediately to repeal this measure. They have my full support.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Woolley and Redbrook Collieries

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. Eric Illsley: The announcement recently by British Coal of the closure of Woolley and Redbrook collieries is a cause for great concern, not only in my constituency but in those bordering mine — notably, Barnsley, West and Penistone, Barnsley, East and the Wakefield constituencies. The area is one of high unemployment and declining industry which can ill-afford the job losses and loss of job opportunity which the closures will inevitably bring.
The closures are further evidence of British Coal's complete antagonism towards the industry. Since 1985 there has been closure after closure of collieries with extensive reserves; closures which are made on economic grounds only, simply to save money and reduce the costs of British Coal — short-term measures rather than a planned future.
The industry is suffering because of the conditions placed on it by the Government — the imposition of break-even and individual colliery self-sufficiency targets, which have resulted in British Coal cutting costs in as many short-term ways as it can think of, rather than looking at ways to make the industry profitable on a longterm basis. The closure of Woolley and Redbrook collieries are two such short-term measures which will lose jobs and waste millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money which has only just been invested in both collieries.
Targets have been imposed on the industry, not to reduce costs for the industry in general but to break up the industry with a view to making a decision on privatisation in the future. However, to do that the Government have to break the National Union of Mineworkers; hence the disciplinary code and the chairman's recent statement that he wants to get rid of union activists, and the refusal to negotiate nationally on any issue.
The Government also have to remove the safety standards of the industry, which are a bulwark against the dangerous practices which British Coal wants to import from America. More importantly, the industry has to be made an attractive proposition — collieries which are profitable will be sold off while the older ones, which have higher production costs, will simply be closed down. That is to be the fate of Woolley and Redbrook collieries despite investment in them over the past few years of hundreds of millions of pounds.
It is the desire of British Coal to achieve self-sufficiency of individual units, which is the main reason for the economic closures — short-term measures rather than planning the best possible use of one of the nation's assets. Cost-cutting through manpower reductions has left many collieries, including Woolley and Redbrook, with insufficient manpower to produce coal properly. Since the end of the miners' strike in 1985, 20,000 men have been moved out of the coal industry in Yorkshire alone. The work forces at both Woolley and Redbrook collieries have co-operated with management on the recent merger of management services at those collieries and a rundown in manpower of several hundreds. Despite that, the board has announced closure without allowing either colliery to

show its potential, even though Redbrook recently achieved productivity levels that left it without replacement face room.
British Coal and the Government are not interested in whether the collieries can produce coal efficiently or cheaply, they are simply to be closed to reduce the overheads of the industry generally. British Coal is forced to cut costs further and further to compete with cheap imported coal from exploited labour in South Africa and child labour in South America. Our own industry is to be wasted to pave the way for some people to line their pockets when the industry is sold. There is no point competing in the market place when the competition is so grossly unfair. A report shortly to be considered by the European Parliament shows the subsidies given to our European competitors.
The coal industry is carrying the costs of the capital investment introduced under "Plan for Coal" in 1974, but which has been reneged upon by the Conservative Government since 1979—partly as a reaction to what happened to the previous Conservative Administration and partly because of previous miners' strikes. Woolley and Redbrook are both casualties of the Government's rejection of "Plan for Coal". Both received heavy investment with the crippling capital charges with which the industry has been burdened. The industry needs those capital charges to be restructured or written off because of the failure of "Plan for Coal". That subsidy is not favouring coal against other energy industries, and comparisons can be drawn with the hidden costs of the decommissioning of nuclear power stations and nuclear waste disposal.
Let us consider the subsidy to the Central Electricity Generating Board last year, when the cost of supplying coal to it was reduced by £3 a tonne. The latest target set for the coal industry is to produce coal at £1·50 per gigajoule. A gigajoule is a unit of energy, and it is equivalent to 227 kilowatt hours. A kilowatt hour is sold by the electricity supply industry at 5·7p per therm, so 227 kilowatt hours multiplied by that figure gives a total of about £15. Therefore, the coal industry is supplying coal at £1·50 per gigajoule, but the electricity boards are selling it at 10 times that amount. Why is there such a differential between the cost of coal per gigajoule produced by British Coal and the level at which the electricity supply industry sells that energy in kilowatt hours?
The targets set for Woolley and Redbrook collieries and the rest of the industry have been made worse, if not impossible, by the changed accountancy praactices of British Coal, resulting in capital charges being imposed on individual collieries. Those charges relate to capital invested over the past decade under "Plan for Coal", which at that time forecast a market of 150 million tonnes. The reality is that the market is 90 million tonnes and falling, yet the industry is still required to carry those crippling capital charges.
At Woolley and, in particular, Redbrook, millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is to be wasted. Are those costs to be transferred? Will other collieries in the area have to carry the burden of capital investment wasted at Woolley and Redbrook? What will happen to the coal washery plant at the Woolley complex? About £106 million is involved in that unit. Redbrook colliery has only recently had its refurbishment completed. An investigation into the investment in those collieries should be undertaken, but British Coal is attempting to prevent


any investigation that would come under the review procedure. The revised redundancy proposals, which have once again been increased to encourage men to leave the industry, will not he available to the men at Woolley and Redbrook unless they agree to accept redundancy before Christmas.
British Coal is blackmailing men into accepting the closure of a unit by threatening to withdraw redundancy payments, thus preventing the review procedure from operating properly because it cannot be completed before Christmas. British Coal is circumventing the review body that it agreed to after the recent miners' strike. Why cannot British Coal allow the review procedure to go ahead and then, but only then, if the decision is the same—nobody doubts that it will be, because the independent review body has not prevented the closure of one colliery yet—allow the men to accept redundancy or apply for transfers? Woolley and Redbrook collieries are to be closed because of the Government's short-term, short-sighted strategy for the coal industry, which is to reduce costs as quickly as possible. It will result in a loss of jobs and a loss of job opportunities in my constituency. The closures are short-term panic measures that have been forced on an industry that needs to be given proper political direction, with a policy to increase production, reduce imports and reduce opencast coal. Redbrook and Woolley collieries should be allowed to remain open to demonstrate their potential, instead of being wasted as part of the Government's headlong rush towards the destruction of the industry.

Mr. Allen McKay: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on obtaining this debate. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), are present in the Chamber. While Redbrook is in my constituency, Woolley colliery and its washery are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. Some 95 per cent. of the men who will be affected by these closures live in the Barnsley, West and Penistone constituency.
It is ironic that about 10 or 12 years ago I had a hand in planning the Woolley-Redbrook complex. As deputy head of manpower for the Barnsley area it was my job to bring the unions together to take part in the meetings and to deal with the problems of the reorganisation of the Barnsley area, which cost £450 million. Redbrook cost £29·5 million, Woolley cost about £10 million for drivages, and the washery cost £106 million.
It was then envisaged that manpower would be reduced from 17,000 to 13,000 and an understanding was struck with the area deputy director that the reorganisation would take the Barnsley area into the 21st century as a strong and viable industry. The trade unions and men cooperated, even though it meant a vast reduction in manpower and a vast reorganisation.
However, that figure of 13,000 men has now been reduced to 7,000, so something has gone tragically wrong. The paint is hardly dry at Redbrook and the contractors have only just moved out. Why is all of the expenditure that was planned some time ago to be wasted? What is the future of Redbrook as an organisational unit if it closes? Will it be leased to private enterprise?
Underground, drivages have been made into a large area of coal reserves. This brand new colliery, with its

shafts widened and deepened and new shafts drilled is to be closed. Further, there are massive reserves just to the east of Woolley colliery.
What will be the capital cost of this reorganisation? The coal preparation plant that was built and planned for 12 collieries will now feed into three—Park Mill, Denby Grange and a new plant on which £30 million has been spent, Calder, which becomes part of the Denby Grange complex—if Woolley and Redbrook close. It is feared that the £106 million of investment in the coal preparation plant, which was planned and built for 12 collieries, will be the next item to be lost. Is the capital cost to be borne by the three remaining collieries that feed the plant? If so, even with a new colliery—the production figures came out for the first time last week—the remaining collieries will immediately be uneconomic.
It is clear that British Coal and the Government have continually moved the goal posts. What was once economic has therefore proved uneconomic. It is no good the Government saying that the matter is not one for them. They should be ashamed of themselves if they think that. It should be a Government concern. The Secretary of State for Education and Science disbanded the Burnham committee and put another in its place, saying that he has the biggest say in what goes on because so much Government and taxpayers' money goes into education. Government and taxpayers' money has gone into the Barnsley area, and the Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves if they shy away from having a say in what happens.
As the situation is so serious, the Minister should discuss with his colleagues whether the Barnsley area should be given development area status. We hope that the worst does not happen, but the Government should not wait until it does. The trade unions will put forward an alternative strategy such as they did for Darfield main, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East, where it worked.
We are asking for a review and, for heaven's sake, let the men off the hook regarding the £5,000, which is worrying them sick. They are in a dicey position. They must apparently accept the decision before Christmas or lose £5,000.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State — it must be very unusual for a Secretary of State to be here at this time of night—have heard with interest what the hon. Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) have said. I notice that the hon. Members for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchcliffe) are also in their places. I recognise their obvious sincerity in bringing before the House the future of the Woolley/Redbrook colliery.
There is absolutely no question about the colliery review procedure not going through. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central said that there was some question about it, but there is none. The procedure will be gone through with full rigour. He will know that the future of individual collieries is a matter for the British Coal corporation, in consultation with the appropriate mining unions.
It has not been acknowledged fully that the Woolley/Redbrook combined mine has lost more than £92 million in the past five years, despite efforts to achieve an


operating performance which would have secured the future of the unit. In November 1985, in line with British Coal's strategy of maximising the production of low cost coal and the income from coal sales, Redbrook and Woolley were identified as requiring improved performance both at the coal face and in surface facilities if they were to survive and have a future. In an attempt to reduce overheads at Woolley, the colliery was merged with North Gawber in January 1986, although—and this also has not been acknowledged fully — due to the lack of agreement by the unions, that happened seven months after the proposal was first made.
Despite measures to reduce costs and a policy of concentrating production in the more efficient seams, both Woolley and Redbrook continued to make heavy losses. In August 1986 it was first proposed that Woolley and Redbrook should be merged to streamline administration and reduce overheads. Some eight months later — months in which results continued to worsen — the unions finally agreed to the merger. It seems that the delay in implementing the merger proposals, which included a run-down in manpower, can only have damaged the prospects for the unit. In July 1987 results were still not showing the hoped for signs of improvement. Development work at the Redbrook end of the unit suffered from industrial relations problems, so-called ragouts, of which again no mention has been made, and—

Mr. Terry Patchett: Says who?

Mr. Spicer: That is perhaps the view of the hon. Gentleman, but it is worth reminding not only Opposition Members but union members outside the House that those ragouts and industrial relations problems eventually come home to roost, and here we have an example.

Mr. Patchett: What is the Minister's interpretation of a ragout?

Mr. Spicer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is able to answer that question for himself. A ragout is a well-known expression that—

Mr. John Cummings: Never heard it before in 29 years.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman has never heard it before. In that case, I am about to educate him. He has been in the industry 29 years and he has never heard the expression. It is part and parcel, unfortunately, of the industry today that there are one-day call-outs and walkouts, often at very little notice, for often irrational reasons — and this case is a perfect example — that do the industry no good at all, to say the very least. In this seam, not only is it true that there were bad industrial relations but, as I am sure hon. Members who have studied this know, there was adverse geology. Seams were abandoned with local agreement. The whole future of the unit had to be reviewed and, unfortunately, the combination of poor operating performance, disappointing development work and a relatively high level of disputes, whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with that or not, together with increasingly adverse geology and a decline in the demand for coking coal, have resulted in an output per manshift so far this year of 2·93 tonnes, one of the lowest in the area. Production costs are even worse—Redbrook coal costs

£2·34 per gigajoule, which is over one and a half times the industry target. Area management has, therefore, concluded that the unit should be closed on economic grounds. In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central, that proposal was put to the unions at the reconvened colliery review meetings on 16 October. Agreement was not reached. It is now open for the three unions involved to take the matter to a national appeal. I understand that the NUM has appealed against the closure.
Both ends of the merged unit are very old. Woolley dates back to 1869 and the original Redbrook shafts to 1850. Reserves have been extensively worked — for instance, Woolley has mined a total of 11 seams. It is hardly surprising that the best coal has been worked out. In addition, working, as the colliery does, under the heavily built-up area of Barnsley, a number of seams have been and will continue to incur heavy subsidence costs. Redbrook has the highest costs in the area. This combination of factors has resulted in losses for the merged unit of just under £12 million for the first half of the year.

Mr. Cummings: The Minister mentioned the NUM and the three unions involved. What is the BACM attitude to closure?

Mr. Spicer: All I am saying at the moment is that, on the colliery review procedure, the NUM has appealed against the closure. I am not aware of the position of the other unions. The NUM has appealed and, therefore, no doubt the procedure will go into effect. The point was made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central that the review procedure was not being conducted properly, and that is an absolute travesty of the facts.

Mr. Illsley: I said that the review procedure was not beng implemented properly. I intended to point out the fact that British Coal would defeat the procedure by telling men that redundancy would not be available to them unless they agreed to accept it by Christmas. The men will, therefore, be bought off. They will apply for redundancy before the review procedure is allowed to run its full course.

Mr. Spicer: I am glad to be able to answer that point. The special redundancy terms that British Coal is offering—the £5,000 addition to the basic redundancy terms, which are already generous—will be available until next March. I do not know where he got the idea—

Mr. Illsley: rose—

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman has put his point of view. I understood that 220 people had already applied.—[Interruption.] It is a purely voluntary matter. They, unlike the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central and some of the unions, may take the view that that pit has become uneconomic. That is the view of British Coal. British Coal is going through the review procedure that is laid down and the unions have every right to appeal against that. There is now a well-established procedure for arguing that point. It is perfectly right that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central should publicise that fact in the House of Commons. No doubt he has done the cause a good service. However, the review procedure is a matter between British Coal and the unions. British Coal believes that it is an uneconomic pit. It had been made even more uneconomic by industrial disputes and the problems that


have existed in industrial relations.—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Barnsley, East disagrees with the facts perhaps he should check them himself to see exactly what industrial disputes there have been. For example, when the question of mergers between the various pits occurred there were tremendous delays in implementing those mergers. In fact, the mergers were finally acknowledged to be the best way of trying to solve the problems of the pits. I agree that it has not worked. Part of the problem is that the combination of factors has resulted in the losses from the merged units being just under £12 million for the first half of the year. Every tonne of coal produced from the pit is losing almost £30.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone raised the question of the possible loss of investment at Woolley-Redbrook. Investment decisions are a matter for the management of British Coal. I cannot and should not be involved in day-to-day decisions. But I understand that the investment in the Woolley-Redbrook complex and the new washery were approved in 1978 under the then Labour Government.
The project regretfully reflects the optimistic assumptions of Labour's "Plan for Coal", which envisaged a coal market of 150 million tonnes in 1985. In fact, only 105 million tonnes were sold in 1985, and 114 million tonnes in 1986, the first full year after the strike. Investment which

is based on unrealistic assumptions is unlikely to pay the dividends expected, whether in the coal industry or elsewhere.
I say unashamedly that this Administration attaches great importance to realistic investment decisions, as I know does British Coal. While it is not for the Government to take decisions on particular investment, we do have a duty to assure ourselves and the House that British Coal adopts the best possible procedures and practices in its investment appraisal. In 1983 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission examined, among other things, the corporation's investment procedures and made recommendations which British Coal accepted. The further Monopolies and Mergers Commission reference of British Coal, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced recently, is likely to include investment appraisal in its investigation.
The colliery review procedures are being conducted. The procedures laid down are being carried out. It is ultimately a matter for British Coal as to whether the pit is finally closed. No doubt it will read carefully the report of the debate that has taken place tonight, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central on having raised the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.